-20 votes

New study exposes the uncomfortable truth about spanking



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here are the key differences...

1. The natural and instinctual responsibility the mom has for the child is prerequisite for our species to live. If the child isn't cared for and doesn't live to the age at which it can procreate, then the species dies out. If the olderly person isn't taken care of by a random stranger, and they die, then there is no effect on humanity other than we have fewer old people and it says a lot about how we care for people. However, there is nothing in nature which requires a random stranger to care for an old person, thus there is no natural relationship nor authority. Without the parent caring for the child, humanity dies out. Obviously not all parents do, but the majority do.
2. A child lacks self control that it will gain as it gets older. Parental authority and discipline is the substitute for that authority until the child gains it natural. A demented old person lacks self control but they will not gain it back. If medical science can cure them of dementia, then medical science is the cure, but to claim that their lack of self control is for the same reason as a child's and that the same measures should be used to account for that is no logical. An demented person will not learn self control through discipline. A child will.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

'Nature' does not tell us anything about morality

But to your first point: yes, moms are the caretakers of children. What does that have to do with the moral justification for spanking? And what difference does it make if 'nature' created the caretaker / dependent relationship not? The human relationship is exactly the same.

2. 'A child lacks self control that it will gain as it gets older' -- Yes, they lack it in the moment and will gain it later. Why would we physically punish them for lacking something they aren't expected to have yet? Surely you don't think that spanking imbues children with self control? You understand that spanking is an external stimulus, right? When you are motivated by external stimuli, you are not developing internal self control mechanisms.

What does that have to do with the moral justification?

I'm glad you asked. You keep trying to claim that the relationship a parent has to a child is "exactly the same" as the relationship random adults have to each other. If it were, then you would not be justified in claiming you have any authority over a child at all. If you don't have authority, then no force is EVER justified. You are not justified in forcing them to live in your house, in their room, you are not justified in forcing them to buckle their seat belt, etc.
You are only justified in using force on your toddler or infant because parental authority is the only authority that is inherently beneficial to humans surviving as a species. Without it, we aren't a species anymore. To claim that a parent doesn't have authority is to claim that a parent can't use ANY force, spanking, keeping a kid indoors in a thunderstorm, etc.
This fact doesn't make spanking right just by itself, however it does soundly refute the idea that spanking is wrong based on the non-aggression principal or the idea that it is wrong to use force on other people. Force is scientifically required for children to be kept alive and it is morally consistent to give that authority to the being that created the child, and not to anyone else.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Dude, you're still skirting the issue

'You are not justified in forcing them to live in your house, in their room, you are not justified in forcing them to buckle their seat belt, etc.'

Then is a candystriper not justified in doing these things for the elderly? Either the candystriper can spank the elderly since they use what you call 'force' in the same way, or they cannot, which means that parents would not be justified in hitting children either. You cannot have it both ways.

What snakepit said was, " IF you don't have authority.....

then you are not justified in forcing....." The point is that since you DO have authority over your child, you are justified in forcing the child.

I addressed that already. You must not be reading my comments.

If you continue to ignore the responses I'm making then I will be wasting my time replying. I've spent a great deal of time explaining this and addressing your issues specifically.
However, to your comment, "Then is a candystriper not justified in doing these things"
They are just as justified as a cop who uses force on a man who is unable to control his body because of a drug fueled rage, or because he is schizophrenic. In both those capacities, the force another human uses is in the purpose of defending himself and others against the actions of someone who is out of control.
Corporal punishment would be logically ineffective against someone who doesn't have the capacity to regain control of their actions. A demented person will not magically respond to spanking, neither will a coke head or a schizo.
Even if those methods worked for these people, there is no authority to use force on these people other than the force used by a cop, or candystriper, or any other person in order to defend themselves or others against the actions of the out of control person.
A child can gain control. They can learn over time and in the moment to control their actions. They aren't demented or on drugs. Corporal punishment can work for them. The issue however is "Is there anyone authorized to use force on them". As I've thoroughly covered, the parent is.
Does that mean spanking is right? Not by itself, but it sure means that it isn't the same thing as why the candystriper is not authorized to spank the elderly demented person.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Project much?

I responded very specifically to the same argument that you have been making over and over. You strip children of NAP protection regarding their caretakers because of the 'force' of keeping a child out of the street. If you do that, you must strip the elderly and any other dependent person with cognitive deficiencies of NAP protection as well. Otherwise, you're just intellectually dishonest or logically inconsistent.

'Corporal punishment would be logically ineffective against someone who doesn't have the capacity to regain control of their actions. A demented person will not magically respond to spanking, neither will a coke head or a schizo.'

Congratulations, you just supported corporal punishment for adults of sound mind. Was that your intention?

No, I clearly did not. And you clearly did not read.

"Even if those methods worked for these people, there is no authority to use force on these people other than the force used by a cop, or candystriper, or any other person in order to defend themselves or others against the actions of the out of control person."
Now you tell me, where in that statement does me saying that corporal punishment is not justified against demented people somehow imply that it is justified against people of sound mind?

I could have gone more in depth about why corporal punishment is not justified on adults of sound mind as well, in fact, I had an entire paragraph about it in my last response to you but I deleted it because I didn't want say something that would veer us off the topic. Our argument isn't about corporal punishment for adults. Just like I stated that any adult has no authority to enact coporal punishment on the demented person, no adult has authority to use corporal punishment against any person of sound mind. You just assumed that because I was only talking about demented people or coke heads that my comments only applied to them.
I was only talking about demented people and cokeheads however, because that is the example you brought up in comparing them to children.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Our argument is about corporal punishment, period.

If morality is universal, you can't create different categories for different people.

'Just like I stated that any adult has no authority to enact coporal punishment on the demented person, no adult has authority to use corporal punishment against any person of sound mind.'

And you have yet to justify the use of corporal punishment on children. If using corporal punishment on adults, of sound mind or not, is immoral, then using corporal punishment on children, of any age, is immoral.

Who said morality is universal and no categories exist?

All my comments have clearly stated that categories exist and in that sense, morality is not "universal". Is it moral for me to come to your house and use force on you to make you sleep in a crib in a room in my house? No. Is it moral for me to make my one year old sleep in a crib in my house, even if he doesn't want to? Yes.
My argument has never been that morality is universal. My argument has been that there are obviously different categories for different people, specifically my kids.
I've stated example after example of how force used on my own children is justified where it wouldn't be justified with a random adult. Its fine that you don't agree with that, but you just keep ignoring that argument.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Well there' s your problem.

If you don't have universal moral principles to stand on, any rules you come up with are just going to be manipulative bullshit.

'I've stated example after example of how force used on my own children is justified where it wouldn't be justified with a random adult'

And you still haven't solved your caretaker problem. If someone is dependent on me for survival and lacks full cognitive abilities in the moment, can I hit them? Can I use corporal punishment because I already force them to stay at the old folk's home or take sharp objects away?

he has answered that at least 3 times

...and done so in great detail and with a lot of respect to you.

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

Really?

He has stated, several times, that corporal punishment is justified in a parent-child dynamic. What he has not done, is explain where that moral justification comes from, or why it doesn't apply to a any other dependent-caretaker situation. He has failed to explain why it is immoral in every dependent-caretaker situation EXCEPT the parent child relationship.

But I'm all ears. Feel free to enlighten me.

Looking at all the

voting in this thread it would appear Daily Paul has a lot of ass beaters.

The religious right is breaking out Bible verses about the rod ... old testament verses no less ... as if Christians live in the old testament. Maybe they are just Jews pretending to be Christians which is cool, we like our rod using Jew brethren. There are comments that discipline, which includes ass beating, perfects moral character. There are comments blaming other parties than individuals beating babies. Who can overlook any pontification comments about asses must be beaten for family survival?

It all leads to one point. People think they own their kids because they "created" them. Yes, they created them so they own them just like any other property they create. This belief is a reason we live in a society where a child's person, derived from intellectual name property of parents, is "registered" (legal term meaning to secure a right or privilege) with states lacking full and honest disclosures to children.

That's right kids, you do not own yourself because parents created and own you so they can beat your ass silly with authority justification. The same property ownership justification southern plantation owners used to beat the asses of niggers. Parents are not content owning that which they have justly acquired. Parents are not content with any form of discipline limited to follow my rules or receive none of my charity. Nope, parents want to own you so they can beat your ass silly. You little ass-munchers will obey ... or else ... because parents love you! Did your parents tell you God loves you unconditionally? Did they tell you that you will burn in hell if you do not obey God? It is because God loves you too!

With so much love in the heavens and earth directed at you, one ought to look forward to getting their ass beaten silly. Since no one is perfect and we will eventually screw up, how would some of us ever feel all this wonderful love if we did not get our asses beaten silly? Be grateful for your daily ass beating(s)!

He sounds like a beta male guppy

The world is now full of feminist males. Touchy feely sensitive acting like a woman. Belong to women not men. To men like that .Try not to look so pretty. You only look like a dame. My opinion.

Money talks and dogs bark

Yeah, throw dirt in it and

Yeah, throw dirt in it and beat your children... We don't need no stankin logic or book readin.. Murka...

I really had to make sure I was on the dailypaul after reading some of these comments lol

The study involves a group of 33 women hitting kids,

And he's a pansy for criticizing them? How does that make him a feminist? Have you seen his videos on anti-feminism, or are you just going to use the man-shaming 'man-up' tactics of a typical feminist?

a real man does not resort to violence to assert control

That's a sign of weakness

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

A real parent

A real parent would know the difference between discipline and violence.

Yes!

Thank you!

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

It's just because

people are using discipline and spanking as if they are related that there's a debate. There should be a mile of difference between discipline and violence, but we live in a society where there isn't, at least not when we're talking about the smallest of us.

Defend Liberty!

I hate to break it to you

but all discipline involves violence. You can't tell me when the child lashes out at me in frustration for not being allowed to put whatever in her mouth that it isn't violence. And having to forcefully restrain a child to keep her from running into the busy street also involves a form of violence.

Violence (n) : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force

Yup, restraining a child can be intense, turbulent, and/or furious and is usually non-destructive. Fits the definition perfectly.

The Study is Incomplete

The study says the women worked outside the home, had high educations and their spouses also lived in the same home. The obvious question to me is “Where is the Spouse and Immediate Family Members when the children are being hit?”

Is the Spouse heard in the recordings the Moms wore?
Why didn't he volunteer to wear a recording device?
When he gets off work and goes home, does he prepare the dinner?
Does he eat dinner at the same table with the mother and child?
Does he clean the house?
Does he bath and diaper the 7 month / 3 year old?
Did he shop for groceries before he came home?
Is he the one who brings and picks up the child from the daycare?
Does he miss a day’s work and sit home with the sick child?
Is he the one who's been getting up every 4 hours for months to feed the baby when it was an infant?

The video dramatically describes a very tired, frustrated, and just plain worn out Wife/Mother who works outside of the home and has no immediate family or spousal support.

Symptoms of Postpartum Depression:
Sadness
Hopelessness
Low self-esteem
Guilt
A feeling of being overwhelmed
Sleep and eating disturbances
Inability to be comforted
Exhaustion
Emptiness
Anhedonia
Social withdrawal
Low or no energy
Becoming easily frustrated
Feeling inadequate in taking care of the baby
Decreased sex drive

There is a formula for frustration there

The speaker would say that the fact they are being observed should make them less likely to hit, but (at least I hope) I've witnessed the opposite. People get more self-conscious that they should be controlling their child when others are watching, even when they know I don't believe in hitting kids. The "at least I hope" part is where I hope it's not worse behind the scenes, but I'm also observant enough to know when a parent is seeming self-conscious and how that tension is playing into the situation. I've seen enough to be of the opinion a parent is more likely to hit because of the in-home observation, especially if the study stated their discipline was under scrutiny. They would be under pressure to make it work NOW and when it doesn't, the frustration is at a high.

But regardless of how frustrated a person is, a no-hitting boundary would help with the frequent hitting part. Dealing with personal frustration and taking out one's own self-consciousness on the kid might still be present in some form, though.

Take care, though because it's worse if no coping techniques or other discipline strategies are present and the parent has confidence in them. It might even lead to an explosion of violence since the frustration isn't being vented.

Defend Liberty!

That Sure Sounds Like

personal responsibility, blame someone else. Let's not blame someone else for bitches beating babies.

I like that ... People Against Bitches Beating Babies (PABBB).

It's not about blame...it's about Cause and Effect...

It's about an Incomplete Study.
Yes, the video states women are beating children.
But WHY are they beating children?
The study is NOT about Single Mothers, it's about Married Mothers.
That's why I questioned missing Spouse left out of the Study at the top of the list.
It's not about Blame...it's about Cause and Effect.
The Study is Incomplete.

Depends how hard the spank is. I got "swatted"

with a fly-swatter and the swat didn't hurt but the idea of being "touched by" the dirty fly-swatter which had momentarily been used to kill flies (some of which were still matted on the swatter) was what was gross and disgusting. So with me, grossness of the fly-swatter cured me of doing naughty stuff.

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul

Is there any other area in life we make that distinction?

It seems the primary defense on this thread is there is a difference between spanking and hitting.

Is there any other area of life we make the distinction?

If a man hits his wife, do we call it a love pat or hitting?
If a woman hits her husband is it any better?

If an older kid at school hits a younger kid do we call it anything other than bullying

A coach hitting an athlete?
An employer hitting an employee?
Even a drill sergeant hitting soldier is not even tolerated.

The fact is that in no other instance is hitting another person to any degree tolerated by society.

From this simple fact there are several observations that cannot be denied.

1. A spanking parent is not modelling good behavior for the child to follow in their adult life. An adult who hits others to resolve conflicts will be ostracized at best or end up in jail or dead at worse. If the parent modeled peaceful conflict resolution skills, this would be a far greater gift to the child.

2. As libertarians we have all been through this leap of understanding once and seen it many times.... explaining that taxation is theft. Once you are on the other side of the understanding its painful that others don't get it, but it probably took us a long time to get it ourselves. With this understanding of human nature and our own experience we should be cautious and slow down reactions to think...... Why is this one exception to a non-violent world relabeled and tolerated? Are there any reasons why I would resist calling this act by the same name as I do in any other circumstance?

What would this mean about my parents, and my parenting if I accept this new paradigm that striking a child is as morally wrong as striking any other person? These are the same challenges that Republicrats face when accepting that taxation is theft. Subconsciously it forces them to admit that they are thieves that have been raised by thieves.

Libertarians have already faced such demons and slayed them once. It is time for them to do it with spanking as well.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Ok, let me answer this

If a man hits his wife, do we call it a love pat or hitting? Depends. S&M, bondage, and spanking all seem to be fetishes.

If a woman hits her husband is it any better? See above.

If an older kid at school hits a younger kid do we call it anything other than bullying. Did the younger kid hit the older kid first? Are they in a sport such as martial arts or boxing?

A coach hitting an athlete? Football. Martial arts. Boxing. Hockey. etc ........

Even a drill sergeant hitting soldier is not even tolerated. You mean when a drill sergeant is teaching a soldier hand to hand combat contact isn't allowed?

Try again.

EDIT

Wow, -2 votes and no rebuttal. Well, if you feel what I've said is so wrong please explain why. Don't worry, it's still the internet, we won't know who you are.

The rebuttal is hardly worth the time,

But I'll spell it out for you. Every single example you gave involves violent activities that require the CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES before engaging in them. Rough sexual, athletic or instructional play that both parties agree to is not even in the same ball park as disciplinary spanking.

Surely you're not going to argue that spanking is voluntary for the child?