Whatever You Do, Don't Spank The Brat

[aelf]

Yes, stealing is wrong, but if you just do it a little bit then it's ok.

Harming a child, physically or emotionally (both in the case of corporal punishment), is wrong, full stop. There is no "subtle distinction" to be made.

I'm sorry, but that's just funny. Hitting a child is comparable to stealing now? Under which definition of morality?

A good indication would be to see how most cultures treat something. Most cultures treat stealing as wrong. How many treat hitting kids as a form of discipline as wrong?

I also disagree that hitting a child is certainly harming him/her. It could be beneficial for the kid.

 

[Gustave5436]

I'm sorry, but that's just funny. Hitting a child is comparable to stealing now? Under which definition of morality?

I wasn't comparing the two, I was saying that moderation doesn't make an evil any less evil. Shoplifting is less severe than bank robbery, but it is still stealing. You seemed to be suggesting that violence against children is acceptable if it is kept to a moderate degree.

A good indication would be to see how most cultures treat something. Most cultures treat stealing as wrong. How many treat hitting kids as a form of discipline as wrong?

How many treat homosexuality as wrong? Not too long ago, it would have been virtually all of them. Furthermore, acceptance of violence against children is decreasing in many cultures, and it is in fact illegal in several countries.

I also disagree that hitting a child is certainly harming him/her. It could be beneficial for the kid.

http://www.apa.org/pi/cyf/res_punish.html

 

[aelf]

I wasn't comparing the two, I was saying that moderation doesn't make an evil any less evil. Shoplifting is less severe than bank robbery, but it is still stealing. You seemed to be suggesting that violence against children is acceptable if it is kept to a moderate degree.

But you were, saying otherwise is just futile semantics. It's not established that hitting a child is wrong, but it is established that stealing is wrong. Trying to find an analogy in stealing is not going to work.

How many treat homosexuality as wrong? Not too long ago, it would have been virtually all of them. Furthermore, acceptance of violence against children is decreasing in many cultures, and it is in fact illegal in several countries.

Err, first, I doubt that very many cultures treated homosexuality as wrong. I think this viewpoint is highly coloured by the perspective of the Abrahamic religions.

Second, violence is the sole means of state power. If you do something illegal, the government will physically force you into jail once you are convicted. If you resist strongly enough, you might even get hit or tasered in the process of being subdued to be put in jail. Caning a child is not even remotely close to tasering someone, yet I doubt you object strongly to having it done to someone who is trying with all his might to resist arrest for breaking the law. So are you against violence per se, or are you only against violence against children? Why specifically children? If the violence is not done with the intent to harm and does not constitute harm to the child, but done with the intent of correcting the child, that is not acceptable? You accept that with adults (at the very least, since adults do come to harm pretty easily during the enforcement of law), otherwise the law is powerless. So children can basically do anything they want without the least threat of physical force?

I think if people think this through, they'll find many absurdities in your sort of position. This issue requires more than an "OMG, think of the children" attitude.

 

[PiMan]

Second, violence is the sole means of state power. If you do something illegal, the government will physically force you into jail once you are convicted. If you resist strongly enough, you might even get hit or tasered in the process of being subdued to be put in jail. Caning a child is not even remotely close to tasering someone, yet I doubt you object strongly to having it done to someone who is trying with all his might to resist arrest for breaking the law. So are you against violence per se, or are you only against violence against children? Why specifically children? If the violence is not done with the intent to harm and does not constitute harm to the child, but done with the intent of correcting the child, that is not acceptable? You accept that with adults (at the very least, since adults do come to harm pretty easily during the enforcement of law), otherwise the law is powerless. So children can basically do anything they want without the least threat of physical force?

Violence is not the sole means. Fines are also a way for judiciaries to exert power. There is no violence in a fine.

 

[aelf]

Violence is not the sole means. Fines are also a way for judiciaries to exert power. There is no violence in a fine.

Try refusing to pay the fine.

It's not like I'm saying violence is the only direct way to punish a kid. It's a last resort.

 

[Gustave5436]

But you were, saying otherwise is just futile semantics. It's not established that hitting a child is wrong, but it is established that stealing is wrong. Trying to find an analogy in stealing is not going to work.

It is established that child abuse is wrong, but you were saying that it is acceptable if done in moderation. That is akin to saying that stealing is also acceptable in moderation.

Err, first, I doubt that very many cultures treated homosexuality as wrong. I think this viewpoint is highly coloured by the perspective of the Abrahamic religions.

In the recent past, at the very least, my statement is true. Just as violence against children was accepted, homosexuality was not accepted, while nowadays, both are reversed. Regardless, past acceptance/non-acceptance of a behavior is not a substitute for psychology, and with psychology we see the modern trend to be preferable.

Caning a child is not even remotely close to tasering someone, yet I doubt you object strongly to having it done to someone who is trying with all his might to resist arrest for breaking the law.

I do not object to self-defense. Tasering/restraining an individual to avoid harm to him/herself or others is hardly equivalent to beating a child.

So are you against violence per se, or are you only against violence against children? Why specifically children?

I am against all violence, though self-defense can be considered a necessary evil for the time being. However, the objection is not "violence is bad," but "violence causes harm, and things which cause harm are bad."

If the violence is not done with the intent to harm and does not constitute harm to the child, but done with the intent of correcting the child, that is not acceptable?

But it does cause harm to the child, as shown by numerous studies, as well as being the official position of several psychological associations, such as the APA (hence my link)

You accept that with adults (at the very least, since adults do come to harm pretty easily during the enforcement of law), otherwise the law is powerless.

I accept the necessity of force to restrain violent individuals. I do not accept corporal punishment, in children or adults.

I think if people think this through, they'll find many absurdities in your sort of position. This issue requires more than an "OMG, think of the children" attitude.

It's more of a, "OMG, think of how psychological studies show that violence against children is utterly unnecessary but has much more potential to cause harm than non-violent methods" attitude. Of course, I also object to the authority parents have over their children in general, but that is a much more complex matter, and not necessary for a rejection of violent child abuse.

 

[Grisu]

The thing about physical punishment is it gives you more options. Otherwise, what can the school do? Send the child out? Suspend him? What if all those don't work? What if the kid figures out that such formalities of school don't really matter to him, that being suspended is actually a good thing from the point of view of a kid who hates school?

in my case, detention seemed to be the most effective means. and if that doesn't work, there's still the parents. the few cases where none of these work aren't worth giving the power to punish physically to teachers per se (as I said, if the parents are ok with it, then fine, but they have to give explicit consent).

Physical punishment imprints itself on the minds of kids in a very different way. Even the threat of it is enough to put a lot of them in line. Which kid isn't afraid of physical punishment? Is it really that painful and abusive, though? Looking back at it as an adult, one knows that it's generally benign and maybe even laughs at the fact that a teacher with a ruler was so scary. To a kid, it's different.

there's quite a bit of disagreement even among experts whether physical punishment works at all. I for one am not going to risk it, and no teacher has the right to override my wishes in this.

the whole thing opens another problem, one of 'good measure'. If you allow teachers to physically discipline your kids, where do you draw the line, how far can they go? What are the behaviours that 'justify' physical punishment?

 

[aelf]

It is established that child abuse is wrong, but you were saying that it is acceptable if done in moderation. That is akin to saying that stealing is also acceptable in moderation.

I think you're at the level of a strawman by now. Who says that physical punishment is child abuse?

In the recent past, at the very least, my statement is true. Just as violence against children was accepted, homosexuality was not accepted, while nowadays, both are reversed. Regardless, past acceptance/non-acceptance of a behavior is not a substitute for psychology, and with psychology we see the modern trend to be preferable.

What is the recent past in all of human history?

Whether it's past or not is not the issue. The issue is of universality. Ultimately, whichever moral system you subscribe to, the test of universality is a crucial one to determine if a moral stance is to be counted on.

I do not object to self-defense. Tasering/restraining an individual to avoid harm to him/herself or others is hardly equivalent to beating a child.

Exactly. Which does the more harm? And which is more constructive?

I am against all violence, though self-defense can be considered a necessary evil for the time being. However, the objection is not "violence is bad," but "violence causes harm, and things which cause harm are bad."

Self defense? Is arresting someone and physically forcing him into jail self defense?

But it does cause harm to the child, as shown by numerous studies, as well as being the official position of several psychological associations, such as the APA (hence my link)

Psychology is by no means an established scientific field.

In any case, I'm sure even psychologists agree that not in all circumstances does physical punishment harm a child psychologically. Well, the proof is in the pudding. How many people who receive physical punishment grow up abnormal? There is no established correlation between abnormality and physical punishment.

I accept the necessity of force to restrain violent individuals. I do not accept corporal punishment, in children or adults.

What if the person is not violent as you conceive 'violent' to be? He's just resisting arrest. He doesn't have to punch a cop or anything. As long as he's struggling, he's liable to be on the receiving end of physical force. Sometimes, there's just no way to get things done without physical force.

The intent is the problem. If the intent is to cause harm, that's bad. Otherwise, just because physical force or punishment is used doesn't make something inherently bad.

It's more of a, "OMG, think of how psychological studies show that violence against children is utterly unnecessary but has much more potential to cause harm than non-violent methods" attitude. Of course, I also object to the authority parents have over their children in general, but that is a much more complex matter, and not necessary for a rejection of violent child abuse.

Well, you can have your way and I'll have mine. Let the results speak for themselves. As far as I know, kids who don't get beaten no matter what are more badly behaved and grow up to be that way.

the whole thing opens another problem, one of 'good measure'. If you allow teachers to physically discipline your kids, where do you draw the line, how far can they go? What are the behaviours that 'justify' physical punishment?

It's all in the regulations and execution. It's not like teachers can do anything they want where physical punishment is practiced. It's not that difficult, really. There are procedures and rules, and people can always take it up if they think it's unfair or too much.