My parents slapped me to stop me doing dangerous things when I was too young to understand reasoned argument.
This to me is a reasonable example of spanking. When the young child is doing something that is harmful to themselves.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most 3 year olds do not have the impulse to harm their siblings.
What do you mean, "impulse?"
Three year olds have enough experience with their bodies to understand pain, and how to inflict it by pinching, pulling, scratching, or slapping. They have developed enough of an ego to want things outside of immediate needs. And most of them have figured out that physical coercion is a way to get what they want.
Spanking may be useful for some child somewhere. I personally think it is entirely overused and ineffective, given the other disciplinary tactics available to us. But I allow there may be some kids who just don't react to anything else. (I
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a few flawed assumptions here -- as well as a much broader spectrum of the use of spanking as discipline. For the most part, reasonable spankings only work on young children. Why? Because it isn't about the application of pain. If you're inflicting pain with a young child, you're applying the concept incorrectly. That's why spanking with "reasonable force" is still legal, both federally and in every state of the Union.
Spanking was effective with both of my children when they were younger, even though I barely touched them. It was the ritualized punishment act that was effective. It was the "you've broken the rules, now you're getting a spanking". This becomes a deterrent that provokes a Pavlovian response. Yes, this lost its effectivity around the age of five or six. About the same time you're able to begin reasoning with a child, they stop fearing a spanking that doesn't hurt. But before they have a strong grasp of logical reasoning, it's effective as heck.
Now, the application of spanking as a pain deterrent is a different story. That could be considered abuse, though the supreme court found that it was neither cruel or unusual. In fact, it's still allowed in many schools in the US. Anecdotally, my cousin was quite the problem child and only reformed after being sent to a private school in Mississippi that practiced caning.
Would I use "pain spanking" on my kids? No way. But if it's moderate and doesn't cause medical issues? I can think of worse legal punishments that can be used as deterrents.
I would have much preferred spankings growing up than a punishment my step-father called "sitting on the chair". From the moment we awoke until the moment we went to bed, we were forced to sit at the kitchen table and "think about what (we) done". No books, no talking, no resting our head on the table. We could get up for bathroom breaks and school only. We had to ask for any drinks or meals. This got pretty excruciating during the summer when school was out. Especially since the minimum punishment was about a week. I'd much have preferred a few bruises or a sore bottom.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most 3 year olds do not have the impulse to harm their siblings.
What do you mean, "impulse?"
Three year olds have enough experience with their bodies to understand pain, and how to inflict it by pinching, pulling, scratching, or slapping. They have developed enough of an ego to want things outside of immediate needs. And most of them have figured out that physical coercion is a way to get what they want.
Spanking may be useful for some child somewhere. I personally think it is entirely overused and ineffective, given the other disciplinary tactics available to us. But I allow there may be some kids who just don't react to anything else.
Of course, the real parenting lesson is to figure out how your child will behave prior to needing discipline, so as to head off problem behavior before it becomes necessary to dole out punishment of any kind.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm happy to read the -first and only- thing you have included in the conversation beyond stating that the AAP is against it.
You have evidently not been paying attention to my posts. This is not even the first time I've given you that link.
quote:As to arrogant and aggressive ignorance...I'm start to feel a bit aggressive, but it has nothing to do with ignorance.
Yeah, it does. I'm calling you out on it. You said "But it is bloody well effective if used properly, no matter what some neck beard MDs have to say about it." Like, literally. That quote is like what people say when they're trying to parody ignorance. Complete with an image denigration of those doctors as just all being a bunch of neckbeards.
You might as well have said "I don't care what a bunch of them fancy-pants city "doctors" with their "pediatric sciences" think about me swattin' my kid"
I am right to call you on that, as I am right to note that I asked you:
Do you understand the argument of the AAP at all, or what it is based upon?
The answer (or nonanswer, in your case), obviously, was a resounding no. Or if not, you have gone to great pains to make it seem that way.
Asking me to check my attitude is a distraction from you really testifying here and now to how you need to check your ignorance. I can absolutely make a straightforward and respectful (repeat) case for abandoning spanking as a parenting tool but it is better to ask that you read, understand, and acknowledge the expert advice of pediatric doctors and scientists, as opposed to me. I am a layman. You are a layman. They are experts. They make an excellent case for it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My 2-year-old has plenty of impulse to harm her siblings. She uses her head very effectively as a blunt object when she wants to get her way. She knows very well she's causing pain.
I don't think spanking should be used very much at all. It's effective when you can keep it as the ultimate punishment. Then even the threat of it can deter bad behavior. But I very, very rarely even mention spanking when I'm threatening discipline. A calm count to three, followed by a time out, usually works just fine. My kids have to be doing something blatantly harmful right in front of me and refuse to quit even after several warnings if I'm going to spank them. That's not often at all.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me note that Samprimary's link is actually pretty good. The latter 1/3 is typical professional condescension toward laymen (read: parents) which I find problematic personally. Then again the intended audience of the piece are other pediatricians; not parents.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I must have missed the first one, but it is not okay to expect me to read and comment on a link you put up immediately. I do not have a job where I can sit at my computer and surf the web when there is down time.
I said I'd read it, I will read it. I will also comment. When I have time.
And I asked you to check your attitude because it was starting to get in the way of the discussion, for me.
What I said was not aggressive ignorance, it was clearly stating that spanking worked to solve a problem for me and mine, quite well, when other things failed. And it did. We went from daily problems to not having a single incident in over 3 months, which is quite a long time when talking about a 3 year old.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: People who spank:
Do you believe that spanking has unique benefit that can only be obtained through spanking? Or merely that there is so little harm in it that it's not necessary to consider alternatives?
Yes, I think it does have a unique benefit. A clever child can turn almost any punishment into a "win" for themselves. If they are grounded from video games, they can still entertain themselves with books or music. Or they can whine until their parents relent and un-ground them. If they are given a time out, they can use the time to think about how wrong Mom and Dad are and feel righteous indignation. If they are verbally scolded, they can "tune out" what the parent is saying.
A swat is an immediate, effective, unavoidable punishment for misbehavior. There is no ambiguity and no argument.
It doesn't work, however, if it is just a threatened punishment that is never acted on. I see too many parents use a spanking as a threat, but the kid knows it won't actually happen so they continue to scream in the store or throw a tantrum in church or whatever.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dustin, the win in spanking is it is over quickly and relatively easily. Also, I wouldn't call the kid who uses tune out to brood clever. The clever kid is the one who acts contrite do they get out faster. I have spanked my kid twice and I am not convinced of its benefits. Once was when she ran away at target and hid in clothes racks and didnt come when I called her. I think the baby leash I bought her and threatened her with was much more effective as a deterent. Second time spanked was the cliched running into the street. Spent weeks attempting to explain why it was ok for us to spank her but not ok for her to spank others. The repeated talks about danger and cars I think made more of an impact. With my baby, I am tempted by spanking because her temperament is so different but then I imagine her look of bein betrayed and the inevitable screaming afterwards and think I just need to be more patient and more creative with her.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Upon a quick reading I have no bones to pick with what the MDs say.
quote:Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use.
quote:Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.
Seems as if I am following the guidelines pretty much spot on.
I am against spanking as the primary form of discipline for children. Spanking certainly can be misused and have negative effects, and should always be an ultimate punishment for serious and dangerous behavior, and always coupled with calm communication and kind reassurance.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I think it does have a unique benefit. A clever child can turn almost any punishment into a "win" for themselves. If they are grounded from video games, they can still entertain themselves with books or music. Or they can whine until their parents relent and un-ground them. If they are given a time out, they can use the time to think about how wrong Mom and Dad are and feel righteous indignation. If they are verbally scolded, they can "tune out" what the parent is saying.
If they are grounded or sent to their rooms, *enjoying themselves* would seem to be defeating the purpose, so maybe don't let them read books or listen to music-tell them they may only read textbooks or do chores or something. If they're whining, the parent can and should show more discipline than the small child and handle that. If they are feeling indignant but not showing it (a crafty child indeed), explain to them clearly and simply what they did wrong, why they are being punished, and how they can avoid it in the future.
So on and so forth. Now I expect you'll reject this assertion because it sounds bad, but all of these examples are cases of the child outwitting, out waiting, outnerving, or sneaking past their parent. That doesn't mean those methods don't work, it means the parent should show more wit, nerve, and discipline than the small child. Easier said than done when it's 24/7, of course, but that's the game.
It's strange to me how advocates for corporal punishment who suggest spanking is a tool do so often in a way that suggests or outright states that it's the only tool that will work. We've seen a bit of that in this discussion. Eventually, so the argument goes, the calculus of parenting is such that a problem will present for which spanking is the only solution.
Strange, there is basically never a single path to anything when it comes to dealing with people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholarette - I don't mind that the duration of the spanking is brief. I'm not trying to teach my children that bad decisions have long-lasting consequences (although they often do, of course).
I'd much rather have a short, "intense" punishment than a long-lasting one. It gets the point across quickly and decisively.
And in some ways, spanking is more of a shaming punishment than a physical one. As someone else said, it is a punishment ritual. If things escalate to spanking, the kid knows they did something really bad and will concentrate on it as the spanking looms.
I remember from being a kid that hearing "I'm going to spank you when we get home" was terribly effective because I had the whole ride home to dwell on what I had done and what I should have done differently. It wasn't fear, necessarily, but more that I was ashamed of upsetting my parents in a stupid way.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
So as a kid, you weren't afraid of being spanked. 'Just wait till your father gets home' with it's implied corporal punishment wasn't a statement that instilled some fear. Just to be clear, that's what you're saying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
"I'm not trying to teach my children that bad decisions have long-lasting consequences"... with spanking.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Consider it like this: the first time you burn your hand on a hot oven or pan, you learn a lesson. It hurts a bit, but it teaches you to be more careful in the future. It is a negative reinforcement. Spankings, for me at least, serve the same purpose.
They do not serve the same purpose, not even remotely, unless for some reason you are an inanimate object that occasionally has hot surfaces, as opposed to a human being that necessarily acts as a behavioral model and caretaker. One which is modeling violence as a means of discouraging unwanted behavior. That the person who loves you also hits you. That you deserve pain.
A stove does not model behavior when it burns a hand. It is an object in the house. You are not an object. You are a human being. You model behavior. When you hit a child, you are modeling many things that you do not intend, and that you think you can get around by being 'patient' and 'loving.' All for the sake of a parenting punishment tool which is strictly inferior to nonspanking options.
When you spank a kid as a punishment you are using a parenting crutch, something that elicits compliance very easily in the visceral sense, that tricks parents into thinking it is either a
1. necessary parenting tool, or a
2. preferable parenting tool.
Once one accepts that it is neither of these is true, what is the honest reasoning by which one continues to excuse the practice of corporal punishment? The act is hopefully distasteful to any parent, and most parents will tell themselves "it hurts me to have to hit my kids, but, ..."
What happens when you remove the 'but' part? What's left to justify sticking with a practice that is normally always described as a necessary if distasteful act? All you have left is a distasteful act with non-distasteful, better options available. What's left as an argument to keep hitting your kids? Convenience? Learning new methods so that you don't have to hit your kids is too hard? It's the way your dad did it, so you refuse to accept new models? Bible says its okay so go nuts?
Parents who hit their kids aren't doing so out of malice or neglect. They are not necessarily being abusive (though many, professing a God-approved method, are horrifically abusive and promote abuse as normal and godly). They just don't know any better, they're following a tradition in an age where it has been debunked. They have three options: remain ignorant and convince themselves they still have to hit their kids; realize they don't have to hit their kids but continue to do so because they are too lazy to figure out how to be a better parent, or work to being a better parent by eschewing violent acts as a parenting tool.
Only one of these is a path that does not require immediate and persistent condemnation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: I'm really surprised to see you promoting such a lack of interaction...on a discussion board.
Samp: Considering how much kerfuffle you made when I didn't instantly read and comment on your link previously, I'm disappointed that you have yet to comment on anything I've had to say, providing yet another link and utterly sticking to this mindset of "spanking is just plain bad and you are just too lazy/stupid to change" without ever addressing my actual situation or comments.
In my case, spanking was necessary because I tried the other techniques and my baby girl was still getting her head sat on. Not only that, it solved the problem, which has never come up again.Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: Your opinion has been clearly heard. Spanking is either evil or stupid. Those of us who spank on purpose are either lazy or not smart enough to be "enlightened."
But please, tell me how any form of punishment is viable under your system of logic.
A Time Out tells the child: "I do not want to be around you when you make mistakes. You deserve to be isolated."
Grounding tells the child: "I have the power to deprive you of something you enjoy. Because you did something I did not want you to do, I am using my power and taking away the thing you love. Too bad."
Yelling at a kid tells them: "You make Daddy so angry!!! I can't control myself because you make life so hard!!!"
EVERY form of punishment can be construed in a negative light, just as you have done with spanking. You don't take the time to understand how it works because you are already dead-set against it.
My children know they are loved and they tell me often. They also get compliments almost daily when we are at restaurants, at the store, walking around the mall, etc. I have FIVE kids and I can take them out by myself with no problem because they have been raised with discipline. (Not to say they are perfect, of course - they still act up, but not too often.)
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. You can make all sorts of blanket statements that make you feel like your opinion is the only *right* one, but I'll take my well-behaved, awesome kids over your pithy comments any day of the week.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the "I spanked and I have good kids" argument is that we don't know what would have happened if you had not spanked. It really ist a controlled experiment. Or comparing kids who we're spanked to kids who are bad to a kid that was spanked and is good. There is selection bias.
I have noticed a lot of parents seem to think you have no other choice but to spank, but they eliminate a lot of options because they are the adults, ie boss. For example, a couple I know fight over getting their kid ready for school. One parent has discovered if she just takes a few minutes to cuddle, all the fights in the morning go away. The other parent argues that they shouldnt coddle the kid and they need to make sure the kid understands who is in charge. He says spank if she misbehaves in getting ready. So, they have a solution which takes the same amount of time but one doesn't think it is a solution because the kid gets what she wants.
Yes, all punishments can be twisted to be wrong but I think the spanking takes less twist. Of course, my husband and I try to make punishments natural consequences versus us as parents enforcing them. We also try to encourage good behavior and through that eliminate bad behavior. For example, my daughter dwaddles in the morning. So, we give rewards/praise/attention when she is not dwaddling and as much as possible ignore the bad. Our focus is on encouraging the behavior we like, not punishing bad. We also do rcis when the kiddo's behavior is out of line. We come at it from the idea that if she is to the point where we need punishment, something else is out of line. Approaching it like a work issue with the root cause investigation helps us get to some interesting solutions, like rearranging schedule or more outdoor time. We try to avoid meltdowns, not punish the kids after it. This is not the same as giving in to the kids or making them the boss. Their are still standArds and expectations, we just get to the good behavior less by totalitarian rule.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing: no one, not even Samprimary, is saying 'you cannot raise children to be happy, healthy, productive, disciplined, and loving if you spank them'.
Children can be happy and joyful and so on under excellent conditions, or terrible conditions, or average conditions. There are children growing up in the sort of desperate, grinding poverty, violence, and want that people in America have difficulty imagining-that I have difficulty imagining.
More than a few of them will manage to be healthy, hardworking, lovely peoole whom will enrich the world for having been there. But none of that means that their childhoods are thus validated! It's tough to overstate how frustrating and overused 'I spank my kids, and they're great' is given all of that. It's not actually an argument. If I am stricken with cancer and survive, I may have learned a great deal from the experience and even be a better person for it-that doesn't equate to a prescription, and if I study hard and utilize natural talent and grow into a hugely successful musician, that also doesn't mean everyone who likes a good tune should go busking.
'I spanked my kids and they're great' is not an argument, it's a way to avoid making or respending to an argument. Anecdotes are generally crappy arguments, which is almost entirely what the people complaining about how mean Samprimary is being are using. What *is* a good argument is a reference to carefully monitored scientific research conducted by experts and reviewed with eyes looking to poke holes by other experts, but let's watch just how little that gets talked about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Time Out tells the child: "I do not want to be around you when you make mistakes. You deserve to be isolated."
Grounding tells the child: "I have the power to deprive you of something you enjoy. Because you did something I did not want you to do, I am using my power and taking away the thing you love. Too bad."
No, this is the spanker justification for such things.
For me, metering privileges according to responsibilities and separation based on unacceptable behavior are easily explained in terms of natural consequences with analogs in the adult world.
"If you keep screaming while we're having dinner, you will have to go to your room. When you act in ways that are disruptive to others, they won't want you to be around them. When you grow up people just won't be your friend. For tonight you're going to have to leave the room until you are ready to act politely at the table."
"Video games are privilege that you earn by finishing your homework, just like daddy can't watch TV until he finishes his work. Since you didn't turn your homework in this week you haven't earned video game time this weekend."
Spanking, on the other hand - "You were bad so I'm going to hit you. Just like how mommy gets punched the police officer if she drives over the speed limit."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Samp: Your opinion has been clearly heard. Spanking is either evil or stupid. Those of us who spank on purpose are either lazy or not smart enough to be "enlightened."
But please, tell me how any form of punishment is viable under your system of logic.
Easiest question of the week. The answer is that all of the listed non-spanking punishments do not model violence and the intentional infliction of pain as a method of resolution. To children. By hitting them. You can strain to model any punishment as negative. You can model hitting children as hitting children.
quote:You don't take the time to understand how it works because you are already dead-set against it.
When you are arguing against someone who has pediatric science backing him up, don't tell them that they just simply don't understand how 'it works.' You have to first establish that it works in the sense that it is claimed to work (in effect, that it is necessary or preferable to not spanking).
Which, I might add, you didn't even touch. Which are you arguing? Are you saying that spanking is either necessary or preferable? Which one?
quote:The proof is in the pudding, as they say. You can make all sorts of blanket statements that make you feel like your opinion is the only *right* one, but I'll take my well-behaved, awesome kids over your pithy comments any day of the week.
By "the proof is in the pudding" you apparently mean "the nonproof is in my own anecdote, as opposed to actual data." SEE ALSO: the "and I turned out fine" argument.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's the thing: no one, not even Samprimary, is saying 'you cannot raise children to be happy, healthy, productive, disciplined, and loving if you spank them'.
Yup. Just look at that third link I provided. I'm absolutely positive parents using that model are more than likely to describe their children as Happy and Well-Behaved Proof of How Awesome it is to Whip your Kids into Submission. Is it proof that justifies their (exceedingly barbaric) method? No. But gut and anecdote is the fallback. Always.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've yet to hear anyone even address the "I tried everything else and it didn't work and spanking did." argument.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that often other options are eliminated by parents who spank that would work and gave an example. I do not know enough details of your situation, but there probably was an option you did not consider.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to not sound snippy, but did you read the post where I described my situation? And if not, why comment?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did read the post but when I say my husband and I do an rci on bad behavior, I mean a full blown root cause investigation with trees and all that. We look at every circumstance that could affect the kids behavior, from time of day to tv shows to friends played with. Your son hit your daughter. Time outs and taking privileges didn't fix. That tells me the obvious stuff. It doesn't tell me spanking only solution. Maybe the kid needed to Be put down for a nap an hour earlier. Maye he needed to not play with whatever friend. Maybe he needed some one non one time with parent. I don't know enough details to say for certain but from what you said, I cannot conclude you tried everything and only spanking worked.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very difficult to get a three year old to articulate their feelings.
And mostly he didn't -hit- his sister, he would sit on her head and bounce. We tried to get him to understand that it wasn't play for her, and when she cried, she wasn't having fun, he needed to stop. But he didn't get it.
He did however understand that when he hurts her, daddy gave him a spanking and a time out.
I do not plan to carry spanking into his adolescence. Once I can explain things to him like, "You can suffocate your sister doing that, and it's not all fun and games." then I will, and not spank. But for now, when it comes to the important, life endangering, too young to get it, already been warned kinda things, he'll get a swot on the bum, a time out and an explanation, and I seriously doubt he will carry any emotional baggage from it into his adult life.
I'm really not sure what to say about getting all CSI on bad behavior...I mean, I applaud your thoroughness and all, but golly, I mean they are kids, barbarous, uncivilized, heathens, just as happy to draw in cat droppings as chalk. Don't get me wrong, I love my little troglodytes, but I don't have to investigate why he thought it was hilarious to jump up and down on someone's head.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did read the post but when I say my husband and I do an rci on bad behavior, I mean a full blown root cause investigation with trees and all that. We look at every circumstance that could affect the kids behavior, from time of day to tv shows to friends played with. Your son hit your daughter. Time outs and taking privileges didn't fix. That tells me the obvious stuff. It doesn't tell me spanking only solution. Maybe the kid needed to Be put down for a nap an hour earlier. Maye he needed to not play with whatever friend. Maybe he needed some one non one time with parent. I don't know enough details to say for certain but from what you said, I cannot conclude you tried everything and only spanking worked.
This to me, in broad terms, could be considered the difference between trying to find the answers to two questions. The first being, "Why is this child behaving this way, and how might that behavior be changed?" and the second being, "Why isn't this child doing what they're told, and how can they be made to obey?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you know why te kid is bouncing on head, you can prevent in the future. If there is an unmet need, you can find a way to meet it. I also do positive reinforcement very strongly. In this case, you see your son playing properly with his sister, you praise him. Ex "good job, I line how you are playing so nice with your sister. That is why we expect from you." when you see negative behavior, you go back to this praise. "that isn't the way we play. Remember how nicely you were playing earlier. That is how we play." this can be tricky sometimes when the positive behavior is brief so you have to be ready and catch the moment. An yes, you are rewarding a child for simply not making trouble. They may not deserve it for something so minor, but I'd it eliminates negative behavior, giving a bunch of extra hugs and attention so much nicer than spanking and yelling. All the responses you listed to your kids misbehaving we're punitive. All the lovely ways to modify behavior non punitively are still out there.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not using "I spank my kids and they're great" as an argument to convince anyone.
I'm saying "I spank my kids and they're great, so I personally see the effectiveness of this discipline method. Your opinion is valid for you, but it contradicts my own experience and thus has less validity for me. If you think I am somehow immoral for spanking, feel free to think you are superior. I don't care."
It's the same feeling I have about my religious beliefs. You might think I'm an idiot for believing in God, but I don't care: I've seen what I've seen and don't need to prove it to you. You can show me 10,000 scientists who say that God doesn't exist, but I know otherwise.
It makes me infuriating to argue with, I admit, because I don't rely on the same "data" and "studies" that you do. And I know that makes you think less of me, but again, I don't care. :-)
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not using "I spank my kids and they're great" as an argument to convince anyone.
Except, y'know, you did attempt to use it as an argument to persuade-that it was reasonable to simply ignore any amount of research that contradicts what you conclude about your own personal experience-because of course that's an infallible way to reach good conclusions, and if after you look into your memories and like what you see, you know you're doing the least bad thing.
The way to not use the 'I spank my kids and they're great' argument is to not use it. You can't expect to have it both ways.
quote:I'm saying "I spank my kids and they're great, so I personally see the effectiveness of this discipline method. Your opinion is valid for you, but it contradicts my own experience and thus has less validity for me. If you think I am somehow immoral for spanking, feel free to think you are superior. I don't care."
Except clearly you do, having gone to some effort to defend corporal punishment as an effective and moral tool of parenting. I'm really not sure if you actually believe you don't care, or simply wish others to think you don't care if they think they're superior in this matter.
quote:It's the same feeling I have about my religious beliefs. You might think I'm an idiot for believing in God, but I don't care: I've seen what I've seen and don't need to prove it to you. You can show me 10,000 scientists who say that God doesn't exist, but I know otherwise.
Wait a second, weren't you the same guy who once claimed to have 'studied science' or some such rot to such an extent you could reject it in sweeping terms? If so, such a man would surely know scientists are hardly in the habit of claiming science demonstrates God exists-using science to debunk various wack-a-doo religious claims about history or reality not being the same thing.
But you already knew that, I'm sure.
quote:It makes me infuriating to argue with, I admit, because I don't rely on the same "data" and "studies" that you do. And I know that makes you think less of me, but again, I don't care. :-)
An important distinction: you're not an 'infuriating' person to argue with. I can see how it would appeal to your vanity, couched in all appropriate religious 'modesty', to think you've got them thar agnostics and atheists seething at your intransigence (godliness), but I expect that more often those that don't find you irritating and amusing simply find you pitiable, but I doubt many are infuriated. You're a dying breed. Time and the passage of generations will handle the sort of attitude you're espousing-not with regards to corporal punishment (though that will happen too), but with your vanity couched as modesty as shown by a reliance on your own simple personal experience, which you regard as as valid a study as anything any group of scientists who make studying children their jobs and their lives. Some like me hold that sort of false modesty and prideful ignorance in contempt, but hardly everyone.
But in general, people don't get infuriated at those who disagree with them if time is showing them to be losing-and I definitely don't want to hear any 'oh so it's just what's popular' from you, though that would be funny.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh - oh so it's just what's popular :-)
You and I will never agree about Science vs. Faith and that's fine. At least we both know where we stand. But to try to dissect my word choice and imply that I am all about 'false modesty' and 'vanity' and 'holier-than-thou' is pretty arrogant on your part.
I'm not posting here to convince anyone that I'm better than them. Do you really think saying "I spank my kids" is a moral statement? If anything, I know that many people here will think *less* of me for it. Instead of trying to persuade anyone to agree with me, I'm trying to show that the statement "Spanking = Abuse" doesn't apply to my situation - or to most people I know who spank their kids.
If you want to continue to attack me personally, feel free, but I won't respond to it anymore.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:You and I will never agree about Science vs. Faith and that's fine.
Well, the important thing is that when someone uses Faith as a shield for being testably wrong about something, you're called on it. Which is what starts to look like what's happening here and which is central. You advanced arguments, but then reverted to a non-argument and a "I know what works for ME."
But you really aren't actually making a statement. Does faith in God ultimately have something to do with you spanking your kids? Is it leveraged as some reason why you 'get' to ignore science or reasoned arguments against hitting your kids? Where ultimately do you stand on the issue of the necessity of spanking? You never really responded to the question of if it were a vital or preferential tool for childrearing, only really that you want to make sure we know that you think (on faith, no less) that it's definitely not abuse.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What *is* a good argument is a reference to carefully monitored scientific research conducted by experts and reviewed with eyes looking to poke holes by other experts, but let's watch just how little that gets talked about.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So... the science doesn't matter until you think it agrees with you.
It is indeed strange, possibly even convenient, that the consensus of scientific study is perhaps valuable and interesting but nonetheless not relevant to the unique (heh), particularly complicated situations that one is living with...
Until a study is found that agrees with you. THEN, suddenly, here is science that asks questions that are relevant. They weren't before-they didn't quite get it right. How do we know? Because we knew the answer to start with, and they were getting it wrong!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is indeed strange, possibly even hypocritical, that one might specifically call for the opposition to provide clinical evidence, and then when furnished with it, completely ignore it and focus solely on attacking the credibility of a "theoretical poster".
posted
I was speaking to Matt with respect to vegimo and Dustin, not to you. I can see why you interpreted it the way you did, but now that I've clarified myself I'll continue not posting to you-except to say that our arrangement is still in place, and ask that if you can't restrain yourself on your own that you remember that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, what? You were talking about me? I provided the study you asked for. What specifically were you saying about me?
Posts: 95 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's strange, as Matt was talking to me, and you quoted him.
Here I thought the game you had set up was talk as much trash as you can get away with by referring to "one" instead of "you". But hey, since you came out from behind the veil, I'll do the same.
I don't believe you for a second.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vegimo: Wait, what? You were talking about me? I provided the study you asked for. What specifically were you saying about me?
There's some confusion here. Samprimary is the one who has most often asked for evidence beyond anecdote, not me. Second, I was replying to Matt about you and Dustin regarding the attitude that studies didn't matter, unless they confirmed a bias. But if you were only offering because it was asked, I misunderstood.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
