In defense of spanking children ...

[EBTX]

I concede that using physical force on a defenseless child is evil. Beating them senseless will generally destroy them and turn them into the next generation of "beaters".

 

So the question becomes "Should parents visit evil upon their children?"

My view is that they should.

To a limited extent.

 

Enough to create within the child a standard of evil to which the child can compare his experiences later in life. That is, extrapolating from a decent spanking (one which causes no lasting physical damage) the child can experience empathy with others who experience a much worse evil.

To "know" anything at all, it must be compared to a standard. To experience empathy, one must have some knowledge of that with which one empathizes. 

To empathize at all with others who have tremendous evil committed upon them, we must have had some lesser evil committed upon ... us. 

Worse yet ... to understand evil ... one must commit evil oneself ... at least on a lesser scale so that the greater evil might be understood by extrapolation from the lesser.

 

If the foregoing is true, it is incumbent on the parent to dispense evil upon his children in order to inoculate them against further damage. If the parent does not do this, he relegates this responsibility to the community at large ... and ... they probably will do it  ... much worse than a caring parent ever would.

 

If one is not so inoculated ... and society does not do it ... the child will grow up incapable of empathy. What they will be capable of is only 'sympathy' which is the intellectual understanding another's distress without the emotional component much prized by humanity at large.

 

So, if this is true, I can predict that Stefan's child will grow up to be (if there are no other factors intervening) ... an intellectual sissy who will analyse accurately all the problems she encounters in life but will feel little, if anything, in the way of empathy. You can't put a child in a 'philosophical-psychological (and dare I say, experimental) bubble' and expect that child to be anything like normal.

 

So, we have this Old Saw "Spare the rod, spoil the child".

 

An old saw is the distilled experience of a hundred billion human beings ... or ... perhaps two trillion man-years that says in effect, "Give the kid a few whacks or he won't grow up true". But Stefan advises against this old saw because he has seen the promised land ... hmmmm ... maybe ... maybe not. There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. 

 

My advice to Stefan would be .... measure twice, saw once.

 

[TheRobin]

Please actually read up on the topic and science behind it before you embrace such a ridculously incorrect and damaging position, let alone "give advice".

[Bastii]

Are you seriously advising Stef to spank his daughter? That's just sick.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The good thing here is that this kind of creepy, confused nonsense is what spanking advocates have been reduced to. 

[dsayers]

I'm sorry that you have to normalize aggression towards defenseless children to protect the artificial image you have of your abusive "caregivers."

 

I'm not sorry that you are professing a conclusion that you have no sound data or methodology for. That's irresponsible. Especially considering that all the ills of the world are rooted in childhood trauma. That's reprehensible.

[Wuzzums]

Enough to create within the child a standard of evil to which the child can compare his experiences later in life. That is, extrapolating from a decent spanking (one which causes no lasting physical damage) the child can experience empathy with others who experience a much worse evil.

To "know" anything at all, it must be compared to a standard. To experience empathy, one must have some knowledge of that with which one empathizes. 

 

 

I do not need to get raped in order to feel sympathy for rape victims in the same way a doctor does not need to get shot in order to treat a gunshot wound.

[weeb]

Don't you think "in defense of spanking..." is a troll-like headline to use? 

 

If not, you know nothing about this community's leanings.  Watch the BIB series.

 

Or, you know exactly what you're doing; and that would make you a troll.

[alexqr1]

My kid has never been spanked, but that does not mean he does not know physical pain. He's hurt himself before several times so he has developed empathy towards those who get hurt.

 

He is smart enough to understand that if I spanked him, it would cause him physical pain. He is also smart enough to understand that if a kid gets spanked, that would cause that kid physical pain and like I said, he has developed empathy towards people feeling pain. T

 

There is no need for me or my wife to cause him physical pain at all. It would be a stupid and cruel thing to do to let my kid know that the people who most care about him in the world are prepared to willingly inflict pain on him for their personal gain.

[Prairie]

tl; dr of original post: physically abusing children innoculates them from abuse.

 

translation: if my parents hadn't abused me, I wouldn't be such a compassionate, caring person and known how much they love me.

[cab21]

What data and research have you done on empathy that would suggest a child needs to experience spanking to feel empathy, rather than be able to put herself in the person's shoes?

[Kevin Beal]

Defending abuse is against the forum guidelines.

[alexqr1]

Defending abuse is against the forum guidelines.

Well what do you know, you're right. That makes me lose a little respect for the board. You'd think a philosophy board would welcome all arguments to be debated.

[Kevin Beal]

Well what do you know, you're right. That makes me lose a little respect for the board. You'd think a philosophy board would welcome all arguments to be debated.

This is a reflection on you, not the boards.

[Prairie]

There are no arguments that can be made for abuse. All supposed arguments always rest on a wink and a nudge somewhere, because the one making the argument has been abused into seeing these pseudo-arguments as legitimate ones. Read the last three paragraphs of the original post for the big wink and nudge.

[Integral Paradox]

Life itself will be cruel. There's no reason the parents should introduce them to it. If anything, they should set the example that one doesn't have to be cruel to make it in the world.

[cab21]

http://drwolffe.blogspot.com/2009/06/child-behavior-spanking.html

 

if the argument is that spanking makes people more empathetic, the research shows the opposite.

[Freedomain]

Goodbye.

[dayna j.]

See you again never.

[alexqr1]

This is a reflection on you, not the boards.

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand

[Kevin Beal]

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand

I don't actually know for sure. Mostly I thought it was a witty thing to say.

 

I just thought it was pretty strange to be with everything so far, all the anarchism, and strong atheism, and objective ethics, and focus on relationships, and push for therapy and all that, and the one thing that makes you lose respect is that defending abuse is a topic that can get a thread closed down.

 

It just seemed like a weird set of priorities. Like, why would you care about that one enough to publicly condemn (too strong a word?) the boards like that?

[alexqr1]

I don't actually know for sure. Mostly I thought it was a witty thing to say. I just thought it was pretty strange to be with everything so far, all the anarchism, and strong atheism, and objective ethics, and focus on relationships, and push for therapy and all that, and the one thing that makes you lose respect is that defending abuse is a topic that can get a thread closed down. It just seemed like a weird set of priorities. Like, why would you care about that one enough to publicly condemn (too strong a word?) the boards like that?

OK, I see what you mean, thanks for clarifying.To me, principles are only valid if they are applied to all instances. If I say "Thou shall not steal" and then I make an exception in a situation where most people will likely sympathy with it, then I might get away with it. Like if I steal in order to feed a hungry person. But regardless of the exception, there is no denying that I did not apply my own principle.In the same way, if this is a philosophy board, then I don't understand why it should ban certain points of view. If those points of view are invalid, then surely it won't be too hard to expose them through philosophy and logic.Socrates did not ban or dismiss Meno because he was the student of a sophist or because of his points of view. In the end Socrates does end the talk with Meno in a funny and dismissive way, but only because Meno was not willing to use reason.If someone comes here arguing that abuse is good, then let's put that argument to the test, after all, isn't knowledge what we are after?

[sagiquarius]

Spanking is corporeal punishment, right?  In general, a "spank" is the act of hitting a child with the goal of utilizing the child's natural aversion to pain to illicit compliance or obedience.  Hitting children teaches them nothing but how to avoid incurring the wrath of the parent.  The negative effects child abuse has on the brain is pretty clear.  Both in scientific study and empirical observation.

 

Creating a topic attempting to argue for the benefits of spanking or "visiting evil upon children", on this board of all boards ... come on.  You knew how it was going to be received, and yet you did it anyway.  Why? Because troll.

 

If you arne't spanking your kids (hence, not following your own advice), then what evils are you visiting upon your kids to inoculate them from the woes of the world?  Tell me your methodology so I can compare to the science I've seen on spanking.  Give me some personal details so I have an example of how you're applying this to your life.  Because, it sounds like your saying it may be a good idea for some parents to hit some kids, but not for you to hit yours.

 

Should parents visit evil upon their kids?  No, of course not.  Parents should be kind, gentle, understanding, and patient with their kids.  Parents should be a guide to help their little life noob to adulthood.  Parents should give the child the benefit of their worldly experience by sharing as much knowledge as is appropriate for their age.  Parents should interact with their kids as if they are trying to earn the love and respect of their children.

 

The benefits of visiting evil upon children is not one of those naval gazing activities that philosophers would be pondering about if they wanted to be of some benefit to the world... come on man, be serious.

[alexqr1]

I have more respect for those who are wrong and are willing to put their ideas on the line than for those who are right without even knowing it.

 

The original poster may have been a troll but maybe he was being honest in putting his ideas out there. Ideas which are wrong by the way and easily dismissed from a logical stand point. If he was the latter, then we would be better off trying to dismantle his illogical position and hopefully helping him learn from the interaction. The only way to honestly do that is to put our own ideas on the line when discussing the issues.

 

Am I going to get negative reputation for this too?

[Kevin Beal]

I have more respect for those who are wrong and are willing to put their ideas on the line than for those who are right without even knowing it.

Also, I'm not really sure what your respect has to do with anything. The guidelines weren't put in place to earn your respect, right? Not to be a dick or anything, but why should I care what you respect or not?

[Josh F]

You dont think it is almost an instantly bad sign that someone lacks the required empathy for these ideas when the go to a forum against child spanking to advocate child spanking?  There are people here who were severely abused by their parents, and this author expressed zero empathy for them. 

 

Also the argument was terrible.  I don't have a problem kicking him off the website just for his inability to reason.  I don't understand why "letting everyone say whatever they want" is confused for philosophical honesty. Philosophical honest doesn't come from insulting argumentation, but empathy and understanding which this person is clearly incapable of.

[alexqr1]

Also, I'm not really sure what your respect has to do with anything. The guidelines weren't put in place to earn your respect, right? Not to be a dick or anything, but why should I care what you respect or not?

No, I understand, I don't think you are a dick or anything. I also understand this board was not created to gain my respect. I just thought it was a board that advocated the advancement of philosophical debate and I think this guideline goes against that.I don't think I ever implied that you are required to care what I respect or not. It is you who answered to my post which leads me to believe you care.I guess the focal point of my argument was not the slightly diminished respect I have for the board, but rather, the importance of being open to all ideas which is not to say to agree with everything that is said. I think (yes, I know what should people care what I think, but for those who care) that this board should ban people not because of their ideas but for their lack of use of reason in debate or discussions. I don't think this person was given a chance. Maybe he was a dick, maybe he was just confused.

You dont think it is almost an instantly bad sign that someone lacks the required empathy for these ideas when the go to a forum against child spanking to advocate child spanking?  There are people here who were severely abused by their parents, and this author expressed zero empathy for them.  Also the argument was terrible.  I don't have a problem kicking him off the website just for his inability to reason.  I don't understand why "letting everyone say whatever they want" is confused for philosophical honesty. Philosophical honest doesn't come from insulting argumentation, but empathy and understanding which this person is clearly incapable of.

I agree that the argument was terrible. I've seen other terrible arguments from people who have not been banned. I never said "letting everyone say whatever they want" is philosophical honesty. I just meant that we did not have a chance to find out weather it was a failed attempt at philosophy (in which case we could had all helped and even learned) or if it was just an asshole being an asshole.

[Josh F]

I agree that the argument was terrible. I've seen other terrible arguments from people who have not been banned. I never said "letting everyone say whatever they want" is philosophical honesty. I just meant that we did not have a chance to find out weather it was a failed attempt at philosophy (in which case we could had all helped and even learned) or if it was just an asshole being an asshole.

I disagree, I think we did have a chance.

 

"I can predict that Stefan's child will grow up to be (if there are no other factors intervening) ... an intellectual sissy who will analyse accurately all the problems she encounters in life but will feel little, if anything, in the way of empathy."

 

Empathy has very clear markers.  The first is curiosity.  He didn't ask a single question of the community, just heaped poorly spelled, poorly written insults on members of the community.  There wasn't a single clue that this person was interested in being shown another perspective.

 

And if I can extrapolate a lesson out of that, is that as a community we should value our time more.  Why spend the collective hours upon hours of discussion with this person, when all the content and arguments are already just a quick google search away? 

[alexqr1]

There wasn't a single clue that this person was interested in being shown another perspective.

You might be right. I would had attempted to rebut his post and then see if he attempted to rebut mine or if he was interested only in advancing his idea without debating. Nevertheless, I am always in favor or helping correct illogical arguments, because that is what I would like people to do with me. That is how we learn, and what better opportunity to advance philosophy than to help those who have a pseudo-philosophy to realize their error. Like I said, I don't know if this person was willing to realize his error or not, but his next post would had been a far better indicator.He was booted not because of his lack of willingness to debate but because of his ideas. We don't know if he was willing to debate, all we have is "clues"

[Josh F]

Yeah it is okay to judge people based on their presentation.  In fact, more than okay, it is an essential skill to avoid manipulation and abuse.  I guarantee without hesitancy that he next reply wasn't going to suddenly beam with empathy and understanding.

[alexqr1]

Yeah it is okay to judge people based on their presentation.

Sure it is. I did not argue against it.

I guarantee without hesitancy that he next reply wasn't going to suddenly beam with empathy and understanding.

My argument was that it does not really matter, it was more important to find out if he was willing to debate seriously than for him to show empathy. I think this goes beyond this forum, but fore everyone who is truly willing to philosophize and have conversations about it, the only necessary prerequisite is willingness to use reason to debate. Being in agreement is not a prerequisite.More importantly, those who want to prevent spanking should embrace the opportunity to talk to someone who is in favor of spanking and who shows no empathy, because that is precisely the people we are trying to help, again the only necessary requirement, is their willingness to use reason. Without letting him answer, we don't know if he wanted to engage in conversation or not.I don't meant to come across as someone making a big deal out of something small, but I actually don't think this is small at all. Again, I think the Socratic dialog Meno illustrates this point. In this case, the original poster was Meno, we should had been Socrates.

[sagiquarius]

Alex, so you see this as a lost opportunity to convince somebody that there might be a better way?  What was it about his post that gave you the slightest hint that the OP was interested in debate?  I mean, you could perceive the post as a method of "reaching out" for help.  Were that the intention, mayhaps he could have worded things a bit more clearly, yes?  In any event, it seemed trollish to me.

[dsayers]

I'm assuming we can't view his post history due to a ban. If you look at his participation in this thread, you will see he wasn't interested in philosophical analysis.

 

alex, I'm sorry you got downvoted for that. My thoughts on the subject is that advocating violence is immoral. Could even be considered criminal, which is why any forum would be quick to mitigate such activity, if only to avoid legal backlash. I don't view preempting immoral, and righteously illegal behavior as stifling the exchange of ideas.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only things coercion can do better than voluntary interaction. So even if the opening post were sound, it still wouldn't be optimal.

[alexqr1]

Alex, so you see this as a lost opportunity to convince somebody that there might be a better way?  What was it about his post that gave you the slightest hint that the OP was interested in debate?  I mean, you could perceive the post as a method of "reaching out" for help.  Were that the intention, mayhaps he could have worded things a bit more clearly, yes?  In any event, it seemed trollish to me.

I don't even know if there was an opportunity or not, I did not get to find out. His post made it clear to me he was wrong, but his answer to our reactions would had given me a clearer idea if he was looking to defend his ideas or just to troll.Sure, he did a poor job at wording things and to be honest, I also think it seemed trollish, but it was not a huge cost to find out.

I'm assuming we can't view his post history due to a ban. If you look at his participation in this thread, you will see he wasn't interested in philosophical analysis.

Now this makes sense to me. I should had looked up his history before, thanks for that. I'm not sure if those in favor of banning him looked at it either. 

alex, I'm sorry you got downvoted for that.

Oh I'm not worried about that, It just seemed to me that I was being downvoted for disagreeing and not for being rude or for a lack of willingness to use reason, which is interesting to me.

My thoughts on the subject is that advocating violence is immoral. Could even be considered criminal, which is why any forum would be quick to mitigate such activity, if only to avoid legal backlash.

That I would understand.

I don't view preempting immoral, and righteously illegal behavior as stifling the exchange of ideas. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only things coercion can do better than voluntary interaction. So even if the opening post were sound, it still wouldn't be optimal.

If someone is arguing in favor of theft, I have no problem debating that person as long as he/she is willing to put his ideas on the line and use reason. For example, I've had many conversations regarding the state with statists. It is a matter of looking for truth regardless of where we are coming from.I once advocated theft, I used to believe in governments. I was wrong but I was willing to put those ideas on the line. I'm glad some people took the time to dismantle those ideas.

[Prairie]

In the same way, if this is a philosophy board, then I don't understand why it should ban certain points of view. If those points of view are invalid, then surely it won't be too hard to expose them through philosophy and logic.

I see Stefan's primary purpose not of philisophy, but of people healing. So I see this board as having a support aspect. A common theme of support boards is banning of certain things because they are the abuse many participants have experienced. Abusers justifying their abuse is probably the common thread to everything. This damages one's ability to see abuse and makes one susceptible to pseudo-justifications for it, so such things just don't work being accepted as valid positions in a discussion.If this were a board for pure philosophical exploration, I'd agree that all ideas should be given room to be explored. This would be an environment where there's no goal to it, nobody pushing the correct view because it's just exploration.alexqr1, I've now read all your responses in this thread in detail. It seems that a central point is that based on EBTX's original post in this thread (ignoring other threads for now), we couldn't tell anything about EBTX's intent, that we can only determine that by how the respond to a reply. I contend that there is ample to go on in the original post to evaluate EBTX's intent, character, etc. At the very least, any discussion would likely be unpleasant and contain put-downs. I know I don't have the stomach for that kind of conversation. The post ends with an appeal to authority, the Christian bible, and a bunch of put-downs and insinuations on Stefan. I would suggest that the blindness you have to all these red flags points to something unrecognized in yourself. In all your replies here you've treated EBTX as some kind of innocent being whom we've judged based on nothing but speculation. I agree that we can't really know EBTX's intentions, but we don't need to. We only need to know that EBTX is likely to be aggressive towards people and not further the goal of healthy children.

[alexqr1]

I see Stefan's primary purpose not of philisophy, but of people healing. So I see this board as having a support aspect. A common theme of support boards is banning of certain things because they are the abuse many participants have experienced. Abusers justifying their abuse is probably the common thread to everything. This damages one's ability to see abuse and makes one susceptible to pseudo-justifications for it, so such things just don't work being accepted as valid positions in a discussion.If this were a board for pure philosophical exploration, I'd agree that all ideas should be given room to be explored. This would be an environment where there's no goal to it, nobody pushing the correct view because it's just exploration.

OK, that answer made me realize I just assumed that that the main goal of the board is philosophy. I may be wrong about that. If the main goal is to help people heal then I would not argue against the rule. Maybe I was just hoping for this to be a board primarily about philosophy so bad that I just assumed it was.

alexqr1, I've now read all your responses in this thread in detail. It seems that a central point is that based on EBTX's original post in this thread (ignoring other threads for now), we couldn't tell anything about EBTX's intent, that we can only determine that by how the respond to a reply. I contend that there is ample to go on in the original post to evaluate EBTX's intent, character, etc. At the very least, any discussion would likely be unpleasant and contain put-downs. I know I don't have the stomach for that kind of conversation.

I understand. I'm not sure if you were the victim of spanking or not. If you were, let me say I am truly sorry about it, and I too am strongly against it. I understand that not having been spanked myself I may not be aware of the intensity or form of discomfort a spanker's victim may experience in a conversation like this. But this would bring us back to the question: is this primarily a board about healing or a board about philosophy? I don't know the answer to that, but thanks to you, now I am aware that I don't know that answer. I'd like to find out.

The post ends with an appeal to authority, the Christian bible, and a bunch of put-downs and insinuations on Stefan. I would suggest that the blindness you have to all these red flags points to something unrecognized in yourself.

I never said I did not recognize them, I will however explore your proposition. I would also like to say that it may also be that since you don't have the stomach for such a conversation, maybe you have a predisposition to avoid it, which I think could be understandable if you were in fact victim of aggression.

In all your replies here you've treated EBTX as some kind of innocent being whom we've judged based on nothing but speculation.

Then I am afraid you completely misunderstood me. That may be my fault, I'm not sure, but when I read my posts I don't see it, although English is not my 1st language.

I agree that we can't really know EBTX's intentions, but we don't need to. We only need to know that EBTX is likely to be aggressive towards people and not further the goal of healthy children.

I disagree. I won't explain why because the reason is all over my replies.I also want to say that if I caused any type of discomfort with what I've said, that was not my intention and I am sorry about that. All I am looking for is the truth, and I am convinced that I can only attain it by having conversations with people who may disagree with me but who are willing to put their ideas on the line as much as I am.