what is the rebuttal for "you dont have kids so..."

[BrianBrian]

"...You don't know how hard it is to be patient and not spank your kids," etc etc. Like the you can't relate so you can't make claims kind of stuff.

 

I heard stef address it but I can't find or remember it for the life of me

[LanceD]

Well as a parent myself I'll tell you that it's nonsense. They are simply using an ad hominem, attacking the messenger instead of addressing the actual argument.

 

It's very similar to the excuses my mother makes for her bad parenting. She likes to say that teenagers are difficult and when they rebel there is nothing you can do and any rebuttal I have to this is met with "well you haven't had to raise a teenager yet!" Since my son is only seven.

 

It's just nonsense and justification. They are shitty people who hit their kids because it makes them feel better. Instead of facing this fact they find ways to dismiss anyone who presents a view point that disagrees with their behavior.

[Cosmin]

You can ask them if they would do the same with a bigger, stronger person. For example would they try to beat up a policeman who is annoying? I am pretty sure they would not, therefore they can control themselves, they just choose not to when it comes to their children.

[Carl Green]

I think being a kid once gives you enough credibility in the argument.

[Stefan Molyneux]

I guess we should never let women talk about the patriarchy, because they have never been men. Also, blacks can never talk about whites. You get the idea...

[dsayers]

Here is an ongoing discussion on the subject:

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38595-you-dont-have-kids-so-you-dont-know-rebuttal/

[Wuzzums]

"You don't have kids so..."

"Yes, and apparently I know more about raising kids than you do. So where does that leave you?"

 

I hope I'll have the cojones to say it if I'm ever in such a situation. I'm curious how it will pan out.

[BrianBrian]

Wuzzums that's a great point but I worry that sort of approach or statement might stir up false self defenses and further cement their justifications for hitting. Delicate territory.

[Carl Green]

"You don't have kids so..."

"Yes, and apparently I know more about raising kids than you do. So where does that leave you?"

 

I hope I'll have the cojones to say it if I'm ever in such a situation. I'm curious how it will pan out.

 

This might be satisfying to say, but it won't have any chance at letting them know why their "you don't have kids" argument is invalid and if you're making the point to them because you care about their child, than I think the best response is the one that has the greatest chance at having a positive affect on the child's life.

[Wuzzums]

My strategy would be to put them on the defense rather than me. They might retort back to their previous argument and no progress was made. Or they might defend themselves saying something to the effect that they're a good parent and whatnot. In which case you say "I didn't know (X) was necessary in order to raise a child, tell me more". But regardless I don't think I've ever seen a person change their stance when they're on the defensive, saving face is like oxygen to some people.

 

Or I thought of another one: "No, but I do have a pet dog which I never hit whenever he did something I didn't like as a pup, and now he's my best friend". They might point out that a child is not a dog, to which you can say "but why are you treating them like one?". Frankly I can't think of any reply that doesn't make them look as if they're treating their child like or less than a dog. And I also wouldn't rule out getting punched in the face.

[algernon]

I've been told this.. "You'll see when you have kids" in which instance I like to use "Before I was married I knew I wasn't going to hit my wife, and now that I'm married I don't".

 

I was having this discussion with my brother in law, who mentioned he spanked his daughter for hitting their dogs. I pointed out the hypocrisy in hitting someone because you don't want them to hit, he tried to use "Well she's small and doesn't understand logic" (She's 2), and then he says "She gets spanked to show her how it's not nice to be hit, so she won't hit the dogs". I kept pointing out the hyprocisy and then he did the "Oh I can't wait for you to have kids, you'll see how tough it is"... Then he goes on to mention how spanking is just one of the many "tools in the toolbox" for discipline, and how every child is different.

 

Try talking spanking at a party, in Texas... It'll be like flies on shit (The anti spanker is the shit, obviously). Some how people think it's a virtue to hit your kids around here. They always post on FB "I'm such a good person because I was SPANKED, THANKS MOM AND DAD". Disgusting. Maybe I need to stop saying things at parties, it's alienating our friends (though I don't care that much), and it seems to bother my wife when 15 people are arguing against me, it's amazing how ears perk up when you say "Maybe spanking is wrong?". No one has a basis for morality or ethics though, so it's confusing for them.

 

 

[dsayers]

Then he goes on to mention how spanking is just one of the many "tools in the toolbox" for discipline, and how every child is different.

 

Wow, that's really disgusting to speak of children as if they're in need of repair and/or a box full of tools with which to repair them. If you encounter this one again, just point out that your discussing rational thought and morality are tools in the toolbox of repairing broken adults. Which were likely broken because of the toolbox he mentioned. If he breaks something porcelain, does he reach for his toolbox with a jackhammer in it? Or does he realize that a tender application of super glue will likely suffice?

[algernon]

Wow, that's really disgusting to speak of children as if they're in need of repair and/or a box full of tools with which to repair them. If you encounter this one again, just point out that your discussing rational thought and morality are tools in the toolbox of repairing broken adults. Which were likely broken because of the toolbox he mentioned. If he breaks something porcelain, does he reach for his toolbox with a jackhammer in it? Or does he realize that a tender application of super glue will likely suffice?

 

A lot of people view children as unruly animals that must be broken in order to fit in to society. Their excuse is children aren't developed enough to use logic and reason like an adult, so you have to hit them since they understand that at a primitive level. Of course the excuse is always made it doesn't really hurt them, since it doesn't leave a mark or any physical damage it's acceptable means of behavior modification. Of course these are generally the same parents who yell at their kids while telling them to stop yelling.

 

I have to admit my mindset was somewhat similar until fairly recently, as I grew up in a spanking household. Like most kids I was told “I hit you because I love you”, of course the propaganda from my parents and everyone I associated with was, it's okay if it's on the butt, and as long as it's not done in a reactionary manner, like in anger or retaliation. You know… your parents NEED to hit you or you'll turn into a piece of shit like those other unruly kids who parents don't hit. Of course correlation is not causation, and I think we all know they were bad kids not because their parents didn't hit them, but because they didn't raise them or care about them at all, usually leaving it up to the state.

 

With that mindset firmly planted in me for the longest time I had accepted it was okay, kids NEED to be spanked, for if they aren't they will surely be misbehaved brats. I think we've all been around those kids, the ones that are loud and obnoxious, don't listen to their parents when they ask them to do something… But then I started making more observations and came to some realizations. Once I no longer accepted the state as justified and realized I cannot agree with it using (the threat of) force as a way to control people, it would be entirely hypocritical to have kids and operate in the same manner. Once the connection was made I instantly changed my programming. Following that realization I had to start making other connections and correlations to children's behavior and attitudes. If spanking isn't an option, which it could no longer be or I would be a complete hypocrite, what options are there? Then I started noticing more and more intricacies of children's behavior and how they are raised. I think they are a really good mirror of their parents or their environment, at daycare or school or whoever their primary caregivers are.

 

A small example would be I have a friend with a 2.5 year old daughter and a 1 year old son. The little girl was over at my house and she had picked up something off of the window seal which could have been easily broken, (my house isn't exactly baby proof yet). She found it intriguing and wanted to play with it, I got down on her level and told her I was going to need to take that, she might break it and she could hurt herself, I would get her something else to play with. When I reached for it she slapped my hand. I did end up taking it and putting it away, she pouted for a second and then played with something else, but I thought it was really odd that she specifically tried to slap my hand. I told my wife about it and she picked up on it right away. Apparently the little girl's mother will tell her not to play with something that's left on the floor (Like her brothers pacifier) and when she picks it up to play with it, the mother will take it and slap her hand and tell her firmly “No!”. Once my wife mentioned that to me I instantly remembered seeing it happen, and saw the mirror image of that being displayed in their daughter. Of course what's going to be played out, the little girl will end up hitting her brother when he takes something of hers, since she's be taught you are to be slapped when you take something from someone, and she will hit her brother. Since hitting is wrong of course she will be spanked.

 

What a mad world.

[LanceD]

I've been told this.. "You'll see when you have kids" in which instance I like to use "Before I was married I knew I wasn't going to hit my wife, and now that I'm married I don't".I was having this discussion with my brother in law, who mentioned he spanked his daughter for hitting their dogs. I pointed out the hypocrisy in hitting someone because you don't want them to hit, he tried to use "Well she's small and doesn't understand logic" (She's 2), and then he says "She gets spanked to show her how it's not nice to be hit, so she won't hit the dogs". I kept pointing out the hyprocisy and then he did the "Oh I can't wait for you to have kids, you'll see how tough it is"... Then he goes on to mention how spanking is just one of the many "tools in the toolbox" for discipline, and how every child is different.Try talking spanking at a party, in Texas... It'll be like flies on shit (The anti spanker is the shit, obviously). Some how people think it's a virtue to hit your kids around here. They always post on FB "I'm such a good person because I was SPANKED, THANKS MOM AND DAD". Disgusting. Maybe I need to stop saying things at parties, it's alienating our friends (though I don't care that much), and it seems to bother my wife when 15 people are arguing against me, it's amazing how ears perk up when you say "Maybe spanking is wrong?". No one has a basis for morality or ethics though, so it's confusing for them.

The thing is you will see when you have kids of your own. You'll see how much you love them and how much you want to do what's right for them and look at the narcissistic parents taking the easy way out as the evil people they really are. Having kids of your own will affect you I agree with them, however it will simply make you hate the people you now only dislike.

[LovePrevails]

Even when you have a kid they will say "well you only have one kid"

and when you have several they will say "well you don't have my kids"

[BrianBrian]

Even when you have a kid they will say "well you only have one kid"

and when you have several they will say "well you don't have my kids"

That's a great point that my girlfriend and I discussed. My friend with the kids and I have had two long conversations in which it was revealed he's been beaten with a branch that drew blood when he was 9 or 10. He had zero empathy for himself and it was a lot of work to get him to recognize how little he felt for himself. He hasn't spanked since October and claims to be done with it, but he was hesitant with the idea of apologizing to his children for it and had an urge to just move forward so I'll be working on the philosophy behind that in our next call.

[corpus mentium]

"You've never overcome being morbidly obese so how can you be an effective nutritionist?"

 

"You've never had poison ivy so you can't know how to treat it."

 

"You don't have a uterus so how can you possibly know how to deliver a child?"

 

"How can you know how to stop leaky roofs if you've never lived on the top floor anywhere?"

 

"You've never had a car of your own so you can't say that crashing a car does any damage to the car."

 

 

 

Even when you have a kid they will say "well you only have one kid"

and when you have several they will say "well you don't have my kids"

 

At that point I might say, "That's true. I don't have your kids, but if I did have them, I wouldn't hit them because I have found A, B, and C to be far more effective and rewarding. Have you ever tried A, B, and C?" And then take it from there. 

 

 

"You don't have kids so..."

"Yes, and apparently I know more about raising kids than you do. So where does that leave you?"

 

I hope I'll have the cojones to say it if I'm ever in such a situation. I'm curious how it will pan out.

 

I agree with BrianBrian here. Anyone who intervenes pretty much starts out with a strike or two against him for the simple fact of speaking up. I think the next step has to be carefully thought out and tactful otherwise the parents will become even more entrenched in their bias. From my thus far theoretical standpoint, I think it's extremely important to keep a cool head and a non-threatening, non-condescending tone of voice, but I will defer to the methods of those who have more experience and general success in changing people's minds to the non-aggressive.

[MeAT]

You can ask them if they would do the same with a bigger, stronger person. For example would they try to beat up a policeman who is annoying? I am pretty sure they would not, therefore they can control themselves, they just choose not to when it comes to their children.

My father is rude to me all the time. I am wayyyy stronger and bigger now than he (and tougher for that matter). So many times I have wanted to say "You know I can hit back now right?" But I have never

[dsayers]

At that point I might say, "That's true. I don't have your kids, but if I did have them, I wouldn't hit them because I have found A, B, and C to be far more effective and rewarding. Have you ever tried A, B, and C?" And then take it from there. 

 

The problem with this approach is that when they say you're not a parent, they've already demonstrated that they're more interested in finding ways to ignore input that doesn't reinforce than they are in being as good a parent as they can possibly be for the sake and happiness of their children. It's kind of like talking to somebody even after they put their fingers in their ears as if continuing to talk will have any bearing on the outcome.

[corpus mentium]

The problem with this approach is that when they say you're not a parent, they've already demonstrated that they're more interested in finding ways to ignore input that doesn't reinforce than they are in being as good a parent as they can possibly be for the sake and happiness of their children. It's kind of like talking to somebody even after they put their fingers in their ears as if continuing to talk will have any bearing on the outcome.

 

I can see what you are saying, but I don't entirely agree with it. The implication seems to be that once the parent says something like this, there is no longer any point in continuing the conversation. Did I understand that correctly?

 

I agree that the chances are small that these parents will make a positive change, but, unless the parents are literally plugging their ears, the chances of them listening to the arguments are not zero and we are already in the conversation anyway. It may be just the exposure that will lead to a positive change further down the road. Later change is not ideal (rather than sooner), but isn't it better than no change at all? Isn't the chance worth taking since we are right there anyway? In some cases (i.e. with friends, relatives, acquaintances), these people already have one peaceful parenting advocate in their lives, maybe they will also know others who will reinforce what we have said.

 

I know I am only one person, but anti-spanking arguments were presented to me over a decade ago and I was vehemently opposed to them and remained so for years afterwards. I had all the uninformed stock responses of, “But they will be brats. But they won't learn reason and respect. But they will walk all over you. But my dad whipped the shit out of me and I turned out fine! I love him!” etc. But the seed was planted that day and I would say that it had a significant effect on me when I later heard additional arguments. I knew that there were people out there that strongly believed in anti-spanking and, because I had previously been presented the arguments against spanking, that maybe these people were on to something after all. I was more open to considering the position, which caused me to finally dig deeper, which was what finally put me on to peaceful parenting, which caused me to get out there and confront pro-spanking misconceptions with the hopes of continuing and expanding the peaceful cycle.

[dsayers]

"Assault is immoral."

 

With those three words, you accomplish so much. Assuming this is the first thing you say, you've planted the seed that morality is paramount. You've sown the seed that spanking is assault. You've disarmed them from even saying, "You don't have kids," because having kids or not doesn't alter the truth value of that statement.

 

I know that if I was a child abuser, just hearing it called assault would give me pause.

 

"You don't have kids," is the sound of soil turning to concrete. You cannot plant seeds in concrete. What this means for us is that we need to be efficient in our efforts. If you lead with, "assault is immoral," it won't matter if they turn to stone because you've already said everything that NEEDS to be said. That there's alternatives and utilitarian reasons not to spank is fluff you can cover with somebody who is curious about the suggestion that they're harming their children.

 

It's triage, baby. The world won't wait for these seeds to manifest. Plant what you can in what little time they give you and move on to more fertile ground.

 

What do you think? I thought I'd mention this approach since I think it satisfies my viewpoint as well as yours.

[dayna j.]

No rebuttal is necessary--or even possible--because they have not posited a valid argument.  I don't have a spaceship, but I can still study and understand orbital mechanics.  I don't "have" a volcano, but I can still study and understand plate tectonics.  The diffiulty is not in finding a way to respond to this non-argument, but rather in getting the person who made it to realize and care that it is a non-argument.

[Carl Green]

No rebuttal is necessary--or even possible--because they have not posited a valid argument.  I don't have a spaceship, but I can still study and understand orbital mechanics.  I don't "have" a volcano, but I can still study and understand plate tectonics.  The diffiulty is not in finding a way to respond to this non-argument, but rather in getting the person who made it to realize and care that it is a non-argument.

 

I'm definitely voting for you next election sir!

[Prairie]

"Well, you've had kids so you don't have the insight of someone like me who can step back from the situation."