-20 votes

New study exposes the uncomfortable truth about spanking

Comment viewing options

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

How about :)

Man slaps wife's hand away from high voltage circuit he's working on in the garage that she was inadvertently getting close to.

Wife slaps husband's leg to wake him up when he starts drifting off to sleep while driving on a long family road-trip.

This would be similar to a controlled, surprising smack on the hand of a small child reaching to touch a hot fireplace.

But that's not truly 'spanking' as generally practiced, is it?

How about man freaks out over wife getting close to electrical circuit, holds her over the table and hits her 6 times? That is far more typical of what these people were recorded doing during the study.


I was mainly meaning that there is hitting and then there is hitting, with context being important -- rather than all forms of hitting being always wrong.

Of course not

But you are implying that the scenarios were put forth fairly instead of being biased to a point of view. I simply pointed out that all the scenarios (except the bullying one) could be looked at from the exact oposite standpoint. Entering into a debate based on the argument "if you take this as fact" automatically means the person giving the "fact" is in the lead and likely to win. However, pointing out that the "fact" is simply a very narrow view of a much broader situation levels the playing field.

So, you say hardly worth the time but and you are correct; just not in the manner you would like to be.

Oh, and another thing, disciplinary spanking is not in the same ball park as bullying, spousal abuse, or any of the other scenarios put forward. Unlike the scenarios mentioned disciplinary spanking's goal is not to cause life altering damage to the child. Anybody who says differently is now in the realm of true child abuse.

I have to agree, but

there are degree's of, I don't know, intent/force used, i suppose, and context is critical.

wow, what a bunch of wimps.

Of course context is important. But only an intellectual wimp wastes time pointing that out.

The point I am trying to make is clear. Rather than confront that point, several people waste time and avoid the issue by making me clarify the hypothetical.

Use your own brains.

Try and make the examples I gave you as apples to apples as a spanking as you can.... all on your lonesome. As opposed to.... "I can think of some instances when your example is not relevant so I refuse to think about this anymore."

Try..." I can think of some instances where your example would be an exact apples to apples comparison and I admit that I think about them very differently. Let me further the conversation by saying in those circumstances I think I Am justified or unjustified in doing so because of X, Y and Z"

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

I was curious...

...what the thought of the people here might be about suddenly startling or scaring your child with a firm 'No!' if they are about to hurt themselves or their siblings, etc. Obviously, abuse is not just physical -- you can emotionally, verbally abuse kids as well, making them feel utterly intimidated and scared. But I would wager that the anti-spankers can see a difference between that kind of verbal abuse and a firm, stern, even loud, 'No!'. But that 'No!' might startle the kid and make them feel scared and intimidated for a few moments, right?

Certainly the anti-spankers can also see a difference between a parent startling a child about to touch a hot fireplace, with a quick attention-grabbing, not even painful smack to the hand accompanying the 'No!' -- a difference between that and taking them out to the woodshed and laying into them in a rage? If you can discern differences between true verbal abuse and mere verbal discipline, why can you not discern the difference between true physical abuse and mere, mild physical discipline?

For non-emergencies, I use non-physical means of disciplining, though. (I especially don't want my kids to associate my hands with punishment. Those are for comforting.)

On the other hand, like some people have already observed here, a parent-child relationship can't really be compared to an adult - adult relationship in terms of what is proper use of physical restraint on someone. If I'm putting my toddler in his car seat and he wants to go stiff as a board and refuse to sit down in it, am I really abusing the toddler if I keep my arm as a barrier to prevent him from actually climbing out? And then when he relaxes, moving my arm with him to keep him sitting? No, of course not. Yet this would be abuse or aggression if I tried this with any adult, in my family or not, unless it was an extreme emergency. I think it would be a bit naive to equate the parent-child relationship with adult-adult relationships in terms of the NAP. There are differences.

Is it really true that Molyneux also thinks parents teaching *any* religious views to their kids is also abuse?

Because a startling NO

while effective in some circumstances could be disasterous if the child was on a flight of stairs or holding a cup of scalding liquid.


Misread your post but am not going to change my reply because I can't seem to rewrite it quite right. :) Sorry about that.

wow, bill did NOT watch the

wow, bill did NOT watch the video with stefan, or he is purposely being an ignorant asshole about it.

No need to be rude.

One of the saving graces of violence is the ability in the real world to place a check on incivility.

The way people talk to each other online is probably a good indicator of the level of discourse that would prevail if violence was impossible.

i was talking about bill burr

i was talking about bill burr and his response to stefan.

That response

is so untrue and awesome that I commend you for it.


Oh! a gift from heaven!

Comedian Bill Burr discovers Stefan Molyneux

This is Bill's idea of an

This is Bill's idea of an argument, let a clueless comedian make your case for you, like his other post below they are forms of ad-hominem attacks, attack the person not his argument.

thanks for wasting my time with this idiot

I listened for about 6 min, right up to the part where the guy admits that he doesn't know what "benevolence" means.

Wait, was this dude on Breaking Bad? Good to know he did at least one good thing in his life.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson


Thanks's so much for posting! Bill Burr is my favorite comedian. If you ever have a chance, see him live, his expressions are that much funnier. Also his Monday Morning podcast rants are great sometimes!

It appears

there is a whole online community devoted to breaking out of the Molyneux cult, with testimonials from former initiates and bereaved parents, reported suicides, and other cult drama!


Just think Bill, if you

Just think Bill, if you posted thousands of YouTube videos like Stef how hated you would be. The only time you're popular here is when you advocate hitting babies and children.

Let's not make this about me.

Let's not make this about me. I realize you're devoted to me, but this thread is about Stefan.

My philosophy on spanking is

My philosophy on spanking is to not do it unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent an even greater harm.

If you're about to spank them, you have control of them.

How could they be at risk of a greater harm in that moment?

Book sense

If you don't get anything out of the inside of the book (Dr. Spock), you can always get something out of the outside of the book applied to their backside.


Just try to imagine, without prejudice, how any family or community who practiced these parenting theories prior to the late 20th century welfare state would have fared.

Think about life over the centuries for the typical family. Think about how survival often depended on the immediate obedience and reliability of 7, 8 or 9 year old boys and girls. Not just in terms of being good, respectful and refraining from acting up or throwing tantrums. Much, much more importantly, being able to rely on them in a pinch to do as told to pitch in to the family's well being, defense, provisioning, hunting, chores, looking after younger siblings, etc.

Not just in emergencies, but day to day performance of chores and duties on farms and other family economies.

Think about how many families failed, how uncertain survival was, how easily ruined a family's fortunes could be. How failure to complete tasks and chores could result in death to live stock, failure of crops, burning of houses, etc.

Can you imagine how utterly detrimental a parenting strategy this would be, and what a failure it would be as a way of life for the families and communities that adopted it? Since these kinds of culturally selected practices determine reproductive success for families and communities, it is no mystery why disciplinarian family units were selected for.

Now, if you support the modern welfare state and expect it to last forever, certainly we can forgo all discipline and all effective parenting, in order to avoid inflicting any pain on others, including refraining from forced labor (chores), making kids brush their teeth, eat their veggies, not eat candy before bed, wear clothes, bathe, and so on. If you're into that, go for it.

As for the rest of us, mind your business thanks!

that kind of retarded logic can be used to justify socialism

Based on your logic: Since most countries in the world are more or less socialist, a preference for socialism has been selected for and has survival advantages over capitalism.

Also, did you not look at references I posted about the child rearing practices of hunter-gatherers? They don't beat their kids.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson


You posted some obscurantist curiosity about some isolated tribe's cultural practices. That you are able to self-brainwash and extrapolate this to some idyllic fantasy of glorified hunter gatherers speaks volumes about your intellectual hygiene.

There is no such thing as retarded logic. Your analogy is spurious, since non market socialistic governments have typically failed and have not at all been selected for as sound systems.

You offer depressingly poor arguments to bolster untenable positions, and tend to be unpleasant as well.

Hunter-gatherers rarely strike their children

I gave examples of at least four different tribes from different parts of the world in my comment. If you want more data, see this book:


“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson


We haven't been hunter gatherers for ten thousand years.

I doubt he would be interested in references,

But I would. I must have missed them. Can you reply with the hunter-gatherer info?

see towards the end of this comment :)


“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson