Bible and Spanking Children

[PotatoStew]

So I'm "allowed" (sorry, I know you're not the final arbiter af what's allowed in these arguments; it's just the word we've been using) to use the premise that scripture was only valid for the culture in which it was written, but may not be valid for today's culture? I don't know - I've never been able to get very far with that argument. Believers, especially in this part of the world, seem to think that the "inspired word of God" means the same thing now that it did then.

Not exactly... in the phrase of mine that you quoted I didn't mean that a scripture was valid then but not now. I meant that an awareness of the culture is needed, because a given phrase or concept may have meant something different to the ancients than it does to us now.

 

[Guest]

Some links

For an issue of such debate, there are often arguments for both sides. These 2 links have a lot of information which also seems to be related to the "method" of arguing the point, using science and religion:

www.northforest.com/christianwritings/spanking.html

And if you read some of this, and more specifically about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way into the link regarding "Corporal Punishment / Discipline:"

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/clergy/chldabus.htm

 

[Christian]

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that "might makes right

This cannot be true. The logic is flawed here. I don't see the necessary connection.

dimossi wrote:
Perhaps the most important problem with corporal punishment is that it distracts the child from the problem at hand, as he becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and revenge.

Again, here I don't see the necessary connection.

dimossi wrote:
In this way the child is deprived of the best opportunities for learning creative problem-solving, and the parent is deprived of the best opportunities for letting the child learn moral values as they relate to real situations. Thus corporal punishment teaches a child nothing about how to handle similar situations in the future.

This is false.

dimossi wrote:
Loving support is the only way to learn true moral behavior based on strong inner values rather than superficially good behavior based only on fear. Strong inner values can only grow in freedom, never under fear.

This is also false. The only way?

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express one's feelings and to solve problems.

This is not true.

Stig wrote:
She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

This cannot be true.

 

[Smalso]

What I have a problem trying to figure out is why (in this state at least) it is perfectly legal and acceptable to do to a child that for which you can be arrested for doing to a dog.

 

[Stig]

What I have a problem trying to figure out is why (in this state at least) it is perfectly legal and acceptable to do to a child that for which you can be arrested for doing to a dog.

That's intersting. Is your state run by sane people, or are they bible bashing loons?

Stig

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Given the following bible quotes from dimossi :

Proverbs 13:24(KJV): "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Proverbs 13:24(AMP): "He who spares his rod (of discipline) hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early.

Are you saying that *you* believe that corporal punishment is

1. the preferred method for disciplining a child?
2. approved and encouraged by the bible?

 

[Paradox]

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that "might makes right

This cannot be true. The logic is flawed here. I don't see the necessary connection.

Psychology does not always neatly follow the rules of logic. This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise). It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

dimossi wrote:
Perhaps the most important problem with corporal punishment is that it distracts the child from the problem at hand, as he becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and revenge.

Again, here I don't see the necessary connection.

The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

dimossi wrote:
In this way the child is deprived of the best opportunities for learning creative problem-solving, and the parent is deprived of the best opportunities for letting the child learn moral values as they relate to real situations. Thus corporal punishment teaches a child nothing about how to handle similar situations in the future.

This is false.

Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

dimossi wrote:
Loving support is the only way to learn true moral behavior based on strong inner values rather than superficially good behavior based only on fear. Strong inner values can only grow in freedom, never under fear.

This is also false. The only way?

Of course, it's not the only way! How disingenuous can you get...

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express one's feelings and to solve problems.

This is not true.

To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

Stig wrote:
She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

This cannot be true.

You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!


[edited to add: Apologies to Stig for not knowing your gender. At least, however, I have not presumed to know more about your personal life than I actually do. ]

 

[Mossy]

Christian,
Rather than go through each comment you made on this post, I'll just address this one since it kinda sums up what you were saying.

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express one's feelings and to solve problems.

This is not true.

Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

-Ed

 

[Guest]

Violence vs Spanking

Christian,



Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

-Ed

"Being violent" and spanking are arguably quite different. Punching or hitting on the face etc. would not be viewed the same way as spanking by many including the courts, and myself for what that is worth. Did you see the sites I offered above?

 

[Paradox]

Re: Violence vs Spanking

"Being violent" and spanking are arguably quite different. Punching or hitting on the face etc. would not be viewed the same way as spanking by many including the courts, and myself for what that is worth. Did you see the sites I offered above?

Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body ?)

 

[Stig]

Psychology does not always neatly follow the rules of logic. This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise). It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

Of course, it's not the only way! How disingenuous can you get...

To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!


[edited to add: Apologies to Stig for not knowing your gender. At least, however, I have not presumed to know more about your personal life than I actually do. ]

Thankyou Paradox, (I'm a father by the way ).

Christian,
I said that my child has never been punished physicaly for anything she has done. Seeing as the topic in question is "spanking" are you suggesting to me that, contrary to what I have just told you, I have hit my child? How the hell would you know?

Stig

 

[Refus de Sejour]

Re: Re: Violence vs Spanking

Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body ?)

From personal experience, I can say that a slap on the face has much stronger psychological impact than one of equal strength elsewhere on the body. I mean.... it's 'IN YOUR FACE'....so to speak. There is an added dimension of insult to the blow.


For the record though, I would never slap a child on any part of their anatomy.



Refus

 

[PotatoStew]

Re: Re: Violence vs Spanking

Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body ?)

You just explained a large part of the difference yourself! Refus has a valid point as well.

 

[Paradox]

From personal experience, I can say that a slap on the face has much stronger psychological impact than one of equal strength elsewhere on the body. I mean.... it's 'IN YOUR FACE'....so to speak. There is an added dimension of insult to the blow.


For the record though, I would never slap a child on any part of their anatomy.



Refus

I think I'd agree. Of course, IMO, the question would be is a slap on the buttocks more acceptable because it provides a lesser 'dimension of insult'? Especially considering that usually (although some may argue otherwise as to the frequency) when things get to the 'spanking point', the hitting is not so much a tool of discipline as it is an expression of anger and frustration.

You just explained a large part of the difference yourself! Refus has a valid point as well.

So it seems that the reduction of pain is what makes a spank more permissible than a slap in the face. Now, when I hear the word 'spank' (and perhaps it may be good to clarify this) I don't get the image of a football buddy's smack on the rear, or the tush-equivalent of holding a kid's wrist and patting the back of their hand. To me, spanking is such that it actually involves pain. Sure, we can say that the pain is perhaps the equivalent of someone high-fiving you a bit too hard (at least), but whether it be on the most or least sensitive part of the body, how do we deny the fact that we are still using pain as a form of discipline? Do we convince ourselves, instead of 'hitting is okay', that 'hitting is okay if it's somewhere that won't hurt as much'?

At very least, can we say that no one in their right might would do this as anything other than a very last-ditch resort?

 

[Mossy]

Re: Violence vs Spanking

"Being violent" and spanking are arguably quite different. Punching or hitting on the face etc. would not be viewed the same way as spanking by many including the courts, and myself for what that is worth. Did you see the sites I offered above?

(I posted this earlier, or thought I did, but apparently something went wrong, so I will try to recreate what I "meant" to post earlier!)

They are "arguably quite different"? The only arguable difference, according to the links you posted, confirms my belief exactly: the less violent you are with your children, the less violent (or generally screwed up) they will become.

A couple statements found in your second link, in the area you recommended, that sum it up nicely:

"Many hidden problems inherent in spanking can have a serious impact upon the lives of children, their families, and society in general. There are as many definitions of spanking as there are people who do it. Parents tend to define spanking by their own experience. If what they are doing falls within the range of their own childhood experience, then -- regardless of its severity or effect upon the child -- it is not child abuse."

And, more to the point of the thread:

"Not all child abusers are Christian and not all Christians are child abusers. But a surprisingly high number of cases of reported child abuse occur in Christian families. Moreover, the abuser often bases the justification of their behavior on Christianity. A father, when confronted by state child protection workers resisted their assistance and said, 'What do you mean I can't beat my child? I'm a Christian.' This Christian father, who had paddled his child with such force that he caused injury, had not sought help to control his anger and violence. He had been taught his responsibility as a parent involves the regular use of corporal punishment and had used it to the extent that it was abusive. Herein lies the problem."

If I only swat my child twice on the bottom, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that that will have less of a negative impact on child than if I beat him into unconsciousness. Is that really an advocacy of spankings: because it will have less of a negative impact?

If it weren't intended to cause pain, it wouldn't be called corporeal punishment. On the spectrum of violence, it may lay on one side, while walking into a high school with a gun and shooting people might lay on the other. But as a parent, why would a person choose to use any punishment on the spectrum of violence as a "parenting tool".

"My parents spanked me, and I didn't turn out bad" is not an argument.

-Ed

 

[juryjone]

Not exactly... in the phrase of mine that you quoted I didn't mean that a scripture was valid then but not now. I meant that an awareness of the culture is needed, because a given phrase or concept may have meant something different to the ancients than it does to us now.

OK then, let's look at the verses cited that condone the physical disciplining of children:

Proverbs 13:24(KJV): "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Proverbs 13:24(AMP): "He who spares his rod (of discipline) hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early."

Where in these verses is spanking condoned, yet not other forms of physical punishment? In Singapore, as we all know, they use caning of the upper body as a form of punishment. Nuns (from personal experience) are fond of the ruler on the knuckles. They are literally using rods of discipline. How do we get from that to a slap on the buttocks only with the flat of the hand?

Is this an example that means "something different to the ancients than it does to us now"? Or is it perfectly OK now to use whatever object comes to hand to beat our children? If there is a difference, why? What scripture has moved us to change our views on how this should be interpreted?

If you're going to use scripture to justify your views on spanking, you'll obviously have to do a lot of heavy interpreting. If you have to change the meaning that much, why use scripture in the first place?

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Are you saying that *you* believe that corporal punishment is
1. the preferred method for disciplining a child?
2. approved and encouraged by the bible?

2 is correct.

Paradox wrote:
This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise).

I don't think this is a correct flow of thought.

Paradox wrote:
It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

Here, I absolutely agree. My objection is the either/or (black or white) stance on the issue.

Paradox wrote:
The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

Please understand that the oversimplification plus the wrong assumptions in your statements is what I'm objecting to.

If you were to put forth the Methodology of punishment by Christians according to Christian psychologist and from it, raised the objections, then I would consider them valid one, nstead of biased ones.

Paradox wrote:
Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

I'm just pointing out the obvious. No one has seriously put out the specific points. The arguments are non-arguments because they are not informed. To have a serious discussion, we need to know methodology. Who know, those who have children will take a second look at how they educate their children.

Paradox wrote:
Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

The problem Paradox is that your notions are not quiet there yet. What I mean is that you first need to know the methodology to refute it.

Paradox wrote:
Of course, it's not the only way! How disingenuous can you get...

Don't dismiss me to quickly. What dimossi is saying is that to educate a child it more a matter of intent and substance than of form (particularly negative reinforcement). I believe he is mistaken.

Paradox wrote:
To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

You must let the possibility that logic can demonstrate that the statement is false. Once the mechanism of how humans learn is understood, then it is easy to see why the statement is false.

Paradox wrote:
You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!

I do not use these words and definately not towards anyone. I believe I deserve your respect sir. If you think this is not acceptable to you, please feel free to ignore my posts.

Let me quote again what Stig wrote:

She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

If Stig has said "I have never physically punished her for anything she has done" your comment would be warranted. Stig didn't say that. He said she has never been punished physically.

This simply cannot be true. Let me give 3 specific reasons why this is not true.

1- If she has ever been with other kids, and she was hit, pushed, stepped on, biten, punched, scratched, etc. by any other kid because of any action she did, she was punished phisically. (the most common example is when fighting over a toy)

2- If she was ever running too fast or not right or any other motion that when against the laws of phisics (with regards to her physical proctection) and she fell, bumped into something. She was punished phisically for her actions (it hurt her phisically to violate these laws)

3- If someone else was in motion and she was not aware of how to avoid contact. She was also punished phisically. Just like you or I would be *punished* if we ran a red light without paying attention and got into an accident.

Mossy wrote:
Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Yes I have seen some. They are correct. What is not correct is to equate physical punishment with abuse.

Mossy wrote:
Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

I absolutely believe this.

Paradox wrote:
Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body ?)

It is quite different. And as I said before, we first need to address methodology.

Stig wrote:
Christian,
I said that my child has never been punished physicaly for anything she has done. Seeing as the topic in question is "spanking" are you suggesting to me that, contrary to what I have just told you, I have hit my child? How the hell would you know?

Asked and answered above.


Refus de Sejour wrote:
For the record though, I would never slap a child on any part of their anatomy.

Neither would I. The hands must not be used ever. There is a reason for this.

Paradox wrote:
how do we deny the fact that we are still using pain as a form of discipline?

Pain is an efective form of discipline. Humans didn't invent this. They are natural mechanisms.

 

[Mossy]

Mossy wrote:
Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Yes I have seen some. They are correct. What is not correct is to equate physical punishment with abuse.

Can you explain what you believe the difference between corporeal punishment (we're talking about parent->child here, not child->other child) and abuse is?

As I mentioned earlier, just because a swat on the butt isn't as painful as, say, a beating with a leather belt, doesn't mean that they aren't both violent acts - one is simply more violent than the other. The intent is the same: to inflict pain.

Mossy wrote:
Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

I absolutely believe this.

Then where do you draw the line? What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

-Ed

 

[Paradox]

Paradox wrote:
This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise).

I don't think this is a correct flow of thought.

Perhaps. However, expressing to a child that how they are feeling happens to be a non sequitur won't change how it has affected them. We are, after all, dealing with children.

Paradox wrote:
It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

Here, I absolutely agree. My objection is the either/or (black or white) stance on the issue.

I understand that the issue is not simply a dichotomy...that there are varied ranges of physical discipline that can be administered. As I mentioned in another post, the moment it crosses the pain barrier (and not just a painless smack to get the attention of the kid) it doesn't matter how frequent or harsh it is...it's still pain. Knowing this, can you say you are comfortable with this idea?

Paradox wrote:
The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

Please understand that the oversimplification plus the wrong assumptions in your statements is what I'm objecting to.

If you were to put forth the Methodology of punishment by Christians according to Christian psychologist and from it, raised the objections, then I would consider them valid one, nstead of biased ones.

Um...I may be reading this wrong (feel free to correct me if I am)...are you saying that you don't consider any study on corporal punishment not done by a christian to be fruitless/unobjective (to you)?

Paradox wrote:
Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

I'm just pointing out the obvious. No one has seriously put out the specific points. The arguments are non-arguments because they are not informed. To have a serious discussion, we need to know methodology. Who know, those who have children will take a second look at how they educate their children.

In this case, by virtue of having been a kid, everyone is at least partially informed. If no one has, according to you, as of yet provided 'specific points', what would these be?

Paradox wrote:
Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

The problem Paradox is that your notions are not quiet there yet. What I mean is that you first need to know the methodology to refute it.

Methodology of what? The studies? Of spanking itself?

Paradox wrote:
Of course, it's not the only way! How disingenuous can you get...

Don't dismiss me to quickly. What dimossi is saying is that to educate a child it more a matter of intent and substance than of form (particularly negative reinforcement). I believe he is mistaken.

For what reasons? Are you saying you would feel inadequate to raise a child without spanking at your disposal? Are you saying the same holds true for everyone?

Paradox wrote:
To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

You must let the possibility that logic can demonstrate that the statement is false. Once the mechanism of how humans learn is understood, then it is easy to see why the statement is false.

Practical means of IVing lessons into children is not the issue. Whether corporal punishment is efficient poses no bearing on whether or not it is dertrimental, if not unecessary. If you intend to defend this efficiency, you will no doubt be gloriously supported: fear is a strict and powerful teacher.

Paradox wrote:
You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!

I do not use these words and definately not towards anyone. I believe I deserve your respect sir. If you think this is not acceptable to you, please feel free to ignore my posts.

We each deserve the respect we earn. Making presumptions about people's lives and, in effect, calling them liars to their faces is not the best way to go about amassing it.

Let me quote again what Stig wrote:
quote:

She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

If Stig has said "I have never physically punished her for anything she has done" your comment would be warranted. Stig didn't say that. He said she has never been punished physically.

This simply cannot be true. Let me give 3 specific reasons why this is not true.

1- If she has ever been with other kids, and she was hit, pushed, stepped on, biten, punched, scratched, etc. by any other kid because of any action she did, she was punished phisically. (the most common example is when fighting over a toy)

2- If she was ever running too fast or not right or any other motion that when against the laws of phisics (with regards to her physical proctection) and she fell, bumped into something. She was punished phisically for her actions (it hurt her phisically to violate these laws)

3- If someone else was in motion and she was not aware of how to avoid contact. She was also punished phisically. Just like you or I would be *punished* if we ran a red light without paying attention and got into an accident.

I don't buy it.
If we are going into dissections of posts, let's go one further...either:

1) You are back-pedalling now after the realization that you made a profoundly inappropriate comment.

2) You intended the 'meaning' of the comment to be as you've described above, which must mean, either:

a) You intentionally worded it in an inflammatory manner so as to rile up the poster (and perhaps others)(aka trolling).

b) You actually had/have not the foresight/tact/common sense to notice that you worded something in a way that would be taken negatively.

Considering the fact that the sub-topic of how Stig's daughter reacts to the world around her (supposedly what you were really addressing) is really irrelevant to the discussion, I cannot possibly see how you felt compelled (otherwise) to comment on it. But that is only my opinion.

In any case, intentional or not, your comment was rude. I find it hard to see any other way, regardless of how attractively the post hoc dress-up is.

Paradox wrote:
how do we deny the fact that we are still using pain as a form of discipline?

Pain is an efective form of discipline. Humans didn't invent this. They are natural mechanisms.

I'm sure this may not have occured to you, but that argument collapses when 'nature' is not considered a sentient entity. I find it ridiculous that you actually suggest something akin to "Gravity punishes me with a concussion when I jump off a 3 story building" ergo "Giving a child a concussion can be an effective method of teaching a child".

Torture is also an effective form of discipline. Your arguments appear to be one-dimensional. They would indeed be most appropriate/efficient...if we wanted unquestioning automatons with no concept of self-worth and individuality.

 

[Christian]

Mossi wrote:
Can you explain what you believe the difference between corporeal punishment (we're talking about parent->child here, not child->other child) and abuse is?

Abuse implies going beyond the limit. The fine for running a red light is $500 (assume). Abuse is to be fined $2,000.

Corporeal punishment is appropriate in certain instances. This punishment administered for the wrong offense is abuse, just as getting thrown in jail is abuse if you violation is being parked in a restricted area.

Mossi wrote:
Then where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line of 90 days in jail versus 1 year in jail. There is specific criteria used here. The purpose of physical punishment is to create an effect. This effect can be created without any abuse involved.

Mossi wrote:
What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

Yes, the rod is correct.

Paradox wrote:
Knowing this, can you say you are comfortable with this idea?

Very much so. Children in some instances must experience physical pain.

Paradox wrote:
Um...I may be reading this wrong (feel free to correct me if I am)...are you saying that you don't consider any study on corporal punishment not done by a christian to be fruitless/unobjective (to you)?

No, I'm not saying this. The incorrect assumption is that children are like animal in the sense that they cannot make a mental construct of the why.

Paradox wrote:
In this case, by virtue of having been a kid, everyone is at least partially informed. If no one has, according to you, as of yet provided 'specific points', what would these be?

The methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment.

Paradox wrote:
Methodology of what? The studies? Of spanking itself?

Of corporal punishment.

Paradox wrote:
For what reasons? Are you saying you would feel inadequate to raise a child without spanking at your disposal? Are you saying the same holds true for everyone?

Correct on 1. Not true on the second.

Paradox wrote:
We each deserve the respect we earn. Making presumptions about people's lives and, in effect, calling them liars to their faces is not the best way to go about amassing it.

Please sir, be decent and admit you were wrong.

Paradox wrote:
I don't buy it.
If we are going into dissections of posts, let's go one further...either:

1) You are back-pedalling now after the realization that you made a profoundly inappropriate comment.

2) You intended the 'meaning' of the comment to be as you've described above, which must mean, either:

a) You intentionally worded it in an inflammatory manner so as to rile up the poster (and perhaps others)(aka trolling).

b) You actually had/have not the foresight/tact/common sense to notice that you worded something in a way that would be taken negatively.

Considering the fact that the sub-topic of how Stig's daughter reacts to the world around her (supposedly what you were really addressing) is really irrelevant to the discussion, I cannot possibly see how you felt compelled (otherwise) to comment on it. But that is only my opinion.

In any case, intentional or not, your comment was rude. I find it hard to see any other way, regardless of how attractively the post hoc dress-up is.

I don't want to think you are giving all these explanations to justify your insults. But I will explain further.

If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.

The person saying not true wants to create an a Socratic effect of, "I see what you mean after the response.

You have blown it completely out of proportion. And have not let me explain why I say this.

I may be wrong in my views, but physical pain is central to the reason why I believe in corporal punishment. The specific example with other kids is also central in my justification. If you do stick around, we will probably get to that.

Hey, maybe it is just that you have a very low tolerance for me, and any hint of impropriaty (spelling) generates from you the harshest response.

Why it's not true no man has touched the penis. The doctor did when he was him out when he was born.

The person that gets the response understands that what they are telling him is that he overlooked a piece of information, not that he was being a liar.

In this case, the piece of information Stig was missing is central to the whole case for corporal punishment.

Paradox wrote:
I'm sure this may not have occured to you, but that argument collapses when 'nature' is not considered a sentient entity

Cause and effect is the perfect teacher regardless of being sentient or not. Corporal punishment is a tool to teach just as bump on the head from a solid object is a teacher.