Physically discipling children

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a large part of it, but I don't think its a particularly valid argument. Its dangerously close to being a slippery slope argument.
My own opinion is that corporal punishment is generally the lazy way out, in fact any punishment is the lazy way out. Generally it is better to get your child to want to do the right thing because its right, not becau ...[text shortened]... corporal punishment.
I believe corporal punishment by educators should probably not be allowed.

Yes we agree on something at last. Corporal punishment is a lazy way out when its administered in place of correction which should always take the form of education. Children need to understand why what they did was wrong and to be made aware that their actions have consequences. this takes time and effort. Where does this leave us with corporal punishment then? as a last resort when all other avenues have been expended?

Not everyone is capable of administering corporal punishment either. I remember there was a female teacher at school who could not administer corporal punishment effectively, she tried but it was so ineffective that the larger boys would laugh at her and she would be reduced to tears. Eventually she would send them to the head of Science who was a large man and had a reputation for being thorough when he belted you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We are not talking about beating children but physically chastising them. An occasional smack on the bum or being given the belt on the palm of the hands as was done at my school is not a beating. You have failed to demonstrate how it can be construed as a beating.

So your limits are "occasional smack on the bum or being given the belt on the palm of the hands", right?

If you hold these out as the worst you have in mind, you need to stand behind them as your limits. But it's unclear. "Smack" means open hand, right? Bare butt? One smack? How occasional? How many belts on the palm? Hard enough to redden? What about belts anywhere else, like on the butt?

Originally posted by JS357
So your limits are "occasional smack on the bum or being given the belt on the palm of the hands", right?

If you hold these out as the worst you have in mind, you need to stand behind them as your limits. But it's unclear. "Smack" means open hand, right? Bare butt? One smack? How occasional? How many belts on the palm? Hard enough to redden? What about belts anywhere else, like on the butt?

I could try and define limitations but first I want to understand the rationale of why its illegal, none of the arguments that have been proffered and none that I have read stand up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I could try and define limitations but first I want to understand the rationale of why its illegal, none of the arguments that have been proffered and none that I have read stand up to scrutiny.

I assume that places that have made spanking illegal do so because of excessive amounts of abuse cases.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a large part of it, but I don't think its a particularly valid argument. Its dangerously close to being a slippery slope argument.
My own opinion is that corporal punishment is generally the lazy way out, in fact any punishment is the lazy way out. Generally it is better to get your child to want to do the right thing because its right, not becau ...[text shortened]... corporal punishment.
I believe corporal punishment by educators should probably not be allowed.

Two points. The first is that the question Robbie posed was not "Should parents use corporal punishment?" nor was it "Should corporal punishment be illegal?" but "What was the motivation behind making it illegal?". So the question is what was going on in the legislators minds? What is their thinking? They will have seen evidence from social workers of punishment which exceeded the boundaries of reasonable. So, although a slippery slope argument may not be valid with regard to the first two questions, I think it is for the actual question asked. I'm sure it was not a sole criterion, nor do I think it was necessarily the decisive criterion, but it will have been a significant one. To answer the question it is necessary to consider the evidence that they will have been presented with and that will, in all likelihood, have formed a significant part of it. So it is clearly a valid answer to the question Robbie posed.

The second point I have is what is wrong with a slippery slope argument? They are not automatically fallacious. There is such a concept as escalation of behaviour. It's entirely valid to point this out in a debate on matters such as this one.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I could try and define limitations but first I want to understand the rationale of why its illegal, none of the arguments that have been proffered and none that I have read stand up to scrutiny.

And so I predict no argument will stand up to your scrutiny, although many studies stand up to peer review. Here's one that links childhood corporal punishment to spousal abuse later in life:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP23.pdf

It's a typical study. If you are really interested, I understand your not reading the whole thing, but there is a summary and conclusions stating on PDF page 13 of 18, which is page 837 of the journal.

"The Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF), published by the National Council on Family Relations, has been the leading research journal in the family field for more than 70 years and is consistently the most highly cited journal in family science. JMF features original research and theory using the variety of methods reflective of the full range of social sciences, including quantitative, qualitative, and multi-method designs; research interpretation; integrative review; reports on methodological and statistical advances; and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families. The Journal also publishes brief reports and book reviews.

Contributors to JMF come from diverse fields, including anthropology, demography, economics, history, psychology, and sociology, as well as interdisciplinary fields such as human development and family science."

https://www.ncfr.org/jmf

Originally posted by DeepThought
Two points. The first is that the question Robbie posed was not "Should parents use corporal punishment?" nor was it "Should corporal punishment be illegal?" but "What was the motivation behind making it illegal?". So the question is what was going on in the legislators minds? What is their thinking? They will have seen evidence from social workers o ...[text shortened]... on of behaviour. It's entirely valid to point this out in a debate on matters such as this one.

"What was the motivation" is step one, step two is done by Robbie and it is "is that motivation valid, sound and compelling?" Unfortunately we are dealing with the motivations of politicians.

A better question, IMO, would have been "Is there a compelling, convincing reason to make corporal punishment of children illegal." I think this question underlies Robbie's way of asking, as he has rendered judgment as though it is the question.

Originally posted by JS357
And so I predict no argument will stand up to your scrutiny, although many studies stand up to peer review. Here's one that links childhood corporal punishment to spousal abuse later in life:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP23.pdf

It's a typical study. If you are really interested, I understand your not reading the whole thing, but there is a summary and ...[text shortened]... erdisciplinary fields such as human development and family science."

https://www.ncfr.org/jmf

I will read the link but already after the first few paragraphs its language is speculative, its claims of a correlation between corporal punishment and spousal abuse unconvincing as there could have and probably were many other more concerning factors other than corporal punishment (which the article acknowledges), after all happy couples don't engage in abuse and to link this to corporal punishment in childhood i find not a little incredulous, unless of course we are willing to say that being subject to corporal punishment causes someone to behave in a particular way.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will read the link but already after the first few paragraphs its language is speculative, its claims of a correlation between corporal punishment and spousal abuse unconvincing as there could have and probably were many other more concerning factors other than corporal punishment (which the article acknowledges), after all happy couples don't enga ...[text shortened]... g to say that being subject to corporal punishment causes someone to behave in a particular way.

So what you're saying ~ essentially ~ is that you don't believe this study that links childhood corporal punishment to spousal abuse later in life because you personally don't believe that there is a link between childhood corporal punishment to spousal abuse later in life, is that right?

Originally posted by DeepThought
So the question is what was going on in the legislators minds? What is their thinking? They will have seen evidence from social workers of punishment which exceeded the boundaries of reasonable. So, although a slippery slope argument may not be valid with regard to the first two questions, I think it is for the actual question asked.

Having read your comments and others in this thread and thinking it through I am inclined to agree. Although the fear of abuse may not on the face of it seem like a good reason to ban a little rap on the knuckles with a ruler, the problem is that when it comes to court, it is difficult to deal with cases where the parent merely says they just went a little bit too far, or were angry and acted in the heat of the moment and didn't really mean to hit so hard etc. If the law states that you shouldn't have been hitting in the first place, then it is much easier to make a ruling.
But even outside the courtroom, the fact is that punishment does often take place when the parent or other person carrying out the punishment is angry and thus there is a not insignificant danger of them going beyond what is reasonable. Thus starting with the rule 'I will not hit my children' can forestall what may eventually turn in to child abuse.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Note to my enemies before I begin. I am NOT advocating physically disciplining children, I am merely seeking to find out what is the rational behind banning it.

Legally the only European countries to allow corporal punishment in both the home and school are the Czech Republic and France.

The Bible itself allows for the physical disciplining o ...[text shortened]... what is the rational behind banning the physical disciplining of children in school or the home?

".., what is the rational behind banning the physical disciplining of children in school or the home?"

There is no rationale behind banning corporal punishment unless it's abusive.

The rationale for using corporal punishment is to instill the value of respect for authority, and to teach a child the difference between right and wrong, especially when disobedience is willful, but not for childish foolishness.
Corporal punishment is but one tool a parent uses in training up a child.

My father was beaten with a switch and hated his father for it. I was belted across the bottom a few times. Should have received more. Was paddled at school a dozen times, hard too. Never complained. I took my punishment as I knew I should.

I've seen abusive parents harm their children. Probably because they were abused. In my opinion if an adult causes sever physical pain and damage to a child that adult should receive like punishment in return. Some parents are brutal.

Originally posted by FMF
So what you're saying ~ essentially ~ is that you don't believe this study that links childhood corporal punishment to spousal abuse later in life because you personally don't believe that there is a link between childhood corporal punishment to spousal abuse later in life, is that right?

lame, soooo lame even for a scourgy windbag like you. What I have actually said and lets be clear about this so that your perverted little mind cannot distort the facts, is

1. the premise of the text is based on a hypothesis which acknowledges that there may be other factors not directly stated which contribute to spousal abuse. Factors other than corporal punishment. Why you are having difficulty understanding this i cannot say.

2. That the text uses arguments which by their very nature are unconvincing by stating not facts but mere plausibilities. They often manifest themselves by phrases like 'its thought that, it may be the case, its plausible that', etc etc Again why you have trouble understanding this I cannot say and what is worse, i don't really care if I am, honest.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]".., what is the rational behind banning the physical disciplining of children in school or the home?"

There is no rationale behind banning corporal punishment unless it's abusive.

The rationale for using corporal punishment is to instill the value of respect for authority, and to teach a child the difference between right and wrong, especially ...[text shortened]... damage to a child that adult should receive like punishment in return. Some parents are brutal.[/b]

I think there is a rationale but understanding what it is and what its based on is not easy. It seems to be that there are a few arguments and if we cut away the flesh and get to the bone we are left with,

1. That corporal punishment leads to other forms of physical abuse.

2. That corporal punishment teaches that violence is a solution.

There may be others but this is what i have understood so far.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will read the link but already after the first few paragraphs its language is speculative, its claims of a correlation between corporal punishment and spousal abuse unconvincing as there could have and probably were many other more concerning factors other than corporal punishment (which the article acknowledges), after all happy couples don't enga ...[text shortened]... g to say that being subject to corporal punishment causes someone to behave in a particular way.

OK by me. I think I can count the times someone here has changed their thinking on anything of significance in any significant way without using any fingers at all. You'd be like a first.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Note to my enemies before I begin. I am NOT advocating physically disciplining children, I am merely seeking to find out what is the rational behind banning it.

Legally the only European countries to allow corporal punishment in both the home and school are the Czech Republic and France.

The Bible itself allows for the physical disciplining o ...[text shortened]... what is the rational behind banning the physical disciplining of children in school or the home?

I've already told my parents that if I get in trouble somehow by the schools for disciplining my child that I want Guido to send the teacher and principal a message. But my children will be a godly children so I won't have to worry about disciplining them.