Objectivity about violence

[Wiltin]

I commented in another thread that spanking works, which makes the argument for peaceful alternatives with people who spank their children difficult. I was surprised to find that some of the community here think that spanking doesn't work at all. Perhaps the problem was in my use of the word "work", but I think it goes deeper than that.

 

So after netting a lot of downvotes I left the conversation alone. I think it deserves some more consideration though so I'm creating this thread to discuss it further.

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm not encouraging, endorsing, or defending spanking!

 

My argument is this: Spanking "works" in the sense that it causes children to obey the commands of parents. It is the most basic and primitive form of expression and control. Children from a very young age understand that physical pain is bad and will change their behavior to avoid it. Parallels can be seen in the stereotypical master/slave relationship where beatings and whippings are employed to, in effect, force slaves to work. Prisoners of war can be physically tortured into obeying their torturer and divulging military secrets. Violence is used by social animals to assert dominance over peers and establish a pecking order. The effectiveness of violence is a rudimentary fact of nature that cannot be ignored and doesn't need to be spelled out.

 

Conceding a point to anyone who uses violence against children may leave some of you feeling dirty, but there is an unfortunate truth here. Violence can be used to manipulate obedience from a child.

 

So when someone says that spanking has worked for them and that their children are very well behaved because of it there are many things you could say, but you cannot say that spanking does not work.

[PatrickC]

Conceding a point to anyone who uses violence against children may leave some of you feeling dirty, but there is an unfortunate truth here. Violence can be used to manipulate obedience from a child.

 

So when someone says that spanking has worked for them and that their children are very well behaved because of it there are many things you could say, but you cannot say that spanking does not work.

 

 

Well, sure it works for the parent in the moment. It certainly gets children under 10 to perform the way parents would like them too.

 

Saying ones children are well behaved because of it is one thing. It's quite another to say traumatizing my children into my (parent) preferences works. It most certainly doesn't help the child other than to create fear in them.

[Wiltin]

Well, sure it works for the parent in the moment. It certainly gets children under 10 to perform the way parents would like them too.

 

Saying ones children are well behaved because of it is one thing. It's quite another to say traumatizing my children into my (parent) preferences works. It most certainly doesn't help the child other than to create fear in them.

 

Yes I agree, and this is the real challenge, getting a parent to recognize the true nature of what they are doing. I'm trying to make this point that spanking works though because it is a necessary concession to make in conversation with a consistent pro-spanking parent. Since empirically they have seen the results, the argument has to be about the nature of those results, not whether or not the results exist at all.

[Wesley]

The question to ask as to whether spanking "works" is to ask what the goal of spanking is.

 

Stefan has referenced some studies (idk where they are or what to link, so maybe someone could help with that) in which children who were spanked for not performing a behavior were "misbehaving" again within minutes of the punishment, let alone the raises in general aggression and issues that the violence creates in the child for periods longer than 10 minutes later.

 

Thus, it would work if the goal were immediate compliance. It would not work if the goal was to create well-behaved children then there is some good evidence that it does not work.

 

However, I would say that none of these things are the goal of spanking.

 

The goal of spanking is to relieve the anxieties and fears of the parents when they are confronted with things from their children that make them uncomfortable. I think there might not be a substantial difference in prescription as the acting out of violent abuse may relieve anxiety in the near term, but reinforces it for the long term and makes actual healing with a therapist less and less possible. I guess my only differentiation is to say that since spanking has such negative outcomes, I would have to assume that the goal of spanking has nothing to do with child discipline. Thus, talking about the outcomes for the child is not a proper evaluation as to whether or not spanking works or not as it may be the stated goal, but it is not the actual motivation for the behavior.

[PatrickC]

I'm trying to make this point that spanking works though because it is a necessary concession to make in conversation with a consistent pro-spanking parent. Since empirically they have seen the results, the argument has to be about the nature of those results, not whether or not the results exist at all.

 

As Wesley rightly points out spanking children has far more to do with alleviating parental anxieties than it does about behaviour modification. I've seen parents hit their children for wandering off, when it was clear they weren't taking a blind bit of notice of them. It was only after another adult guided them back to the parents that the spanking commenced. These parents clearly felt embarrased by their neglect of their own child.

 

As a point of reference Stefan has mentioned many times that spanking leads to a short term gain for parents. I'm not sure what further concessions you can give (pro spanking) parents beyond that.

[tjt]

I agree with the other guys and wanted to second the fact that spanking works really well if you are living in the moment and have no regard for the future. It's a solution that will get you immediate results which will last 10 minutes or maybe a day. But you're not going to achieve positive long-term results with your child... in fact spanking is quite detrimental in the long term. There are tons of good podcasts on the subject. Like the interview Stefan did with Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff: 

 

[Ruben Zandstra]

I agree with the other guys and wanted to second the fact that spanking works really well if you are living in the moment and have no regard for the future.

 

I may be wrong, but still I'd like to disagree that there are short-term benefits to spanking.

 

When you say there are benefits I think it's an observations made looking at it from an abuse-addicted paradigm. 

I think it's similar to saying that smoking gives good results in the short term, and bad ones only in the long term.

Which may be true for addicts, but it's not universal: smoking tastes really foul for quite some time, until eventually you acquire "the taste", and are in fact addicted.

Similarly, hitting a child only gives "good results" in the short term when it's been your habit to do so for some time, and the parent-child bond has been long broken.

The bad results are not somewhere in the future. They are the very thing that makes an abuser want to strike out again.

[endostate]

Wiltin, here's your argument applied to wife beating: 

My argument is this: Wife beating "works" in the sense that it causes wives to obey the commands of husbands.

Conceding a point to wife beaters may leave some of you feeling dirty, but there is an unfortunate truth here. Wife beating can be used to manipulate obedience from a wife.

So when someone says that wife beating has worked for them and that their wife is very well behaved because of it there are many things you could say, but you cannot say that wife beating does not work.

Yes I agree, and this is the real challenge, getting a husband to recognize the true nature of what they are doing. I'm trying to make this point that wife beating works though because it is a necessary concession to make in conversation with a consistent pro-wife beating husband. Since empirically they have seen the results, the argument has to be about the nature of those results, not whether or not the results exist at all.

It can also be argued that raping results in sex. Theft results in profit. Assault results in compliance.Why is it necessary to concede to a criminal that their crime 'works' for them? Doesn't this just bolster their argument from effect? 

[Wiltin]

Wiltin, here's your argument applied to wife beating: 

It can also be argued that raping results in sex. Theft results in profit. Assault results in compliance.Why is it necessary to concede to a criminal that their crime 'works' for them? Doesn't this just bolster their argument from effect? 

 

You're right, rape is a good example. If you were to tell a rapist that rape doesn't result in sex, they would give you a raised eyebrow. It is necessary to concede that their crime works because otherwise you have no credibility with them and any further argument is pointless.

[tjt]

 

I may be wrong, but still I'd like to disagree that there are short-term benefits to spanking.

 

When you say there are benefits I think it's an observations made looking at it from an abuse-addicted paradigm. 

I think it's similar to saying that smoking gives good results in the short term, and bad ones only in the long term.

Which may be true for addicts, but it's not universal: smoking tastes really foul for quite some time, until eventually you acquire "the taste", and are in fact addicted.

Similarly, hitting a child only gives "good results" in the short term when it's been your habit to do so for some time, and the parent-child bond has been long broken.

The bad results are not somewhere in the future. They are the very thing that makes an abuser want to strike out again.

 

 

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here, but I'm really trying. I've read this post many times and still don't think I'm getting the point. Would you be able to expand or rephrase? In this analogy is it the child or the parent who becomes addicted? I guess in my earlier post I was focusing mostly on how the child is effected, and as a child I never acquired a taste for being spanked, no matter how many times I got spanked.

 

I was responding out of experience -- I remember being spanked by my father, and it instilled such a fear in me that afterwards I did whatever he asked. I became very obedient. In his eyes, it was working. Fast forward 20-some years later, he is missing a daughter (I don't speak to him) and I have a boat load of personal issues all because he couldn't manage his own emotions and his solution was to blame his children and scare the living daylights out of them with violence to change their behavior in the moment.

 

Here's an example of the perspective I was trying to demonstrate - a father comes home after a stressful day at work and the kids are rowdy, yelling and running around. They are getting on his nerves (what they are doing is neither morally "good" nor "bad", it's just not what he wants them to be doing), so he gets them to stop by scaring the living shit out of them with a spanking. The kids will stop being rowdy to prevent further violent attacks from their father.

 

Notice how I did not use the words "good" or "bad" in my earlier post... spanking is done on behalf of the parent to change the child's behavior without any regard for the lasting effects and without any introspection as to why the parent wants the child to change. These are all just my thoughts on the fly, so nothing is concrete yet. 

[endostate]

You're right, rape is a good example. If you were to tell a rapist that rape doesn't result in sex, they would give you a raised eyebrow. It is necessary to concede that their crime works because otherwise you have no credibility with them and any further argument is pointless.

 

Step 1. Gain credibility by conceding that coercion works (perhaps include a high-five)Step 2. Explain why coercion doesn't work (UPB, property rights, NAP)Doesn't the dissonance just introduce further incredulity?

[Wiltin]

Step 1. Gain credibility by conceding that coercion works (perhaps include a high-five)Step 2. Explain why coercion doesn't work (UPB, property rights, NAP)Doesn't the dissonance just introduce further incredulity?

This is precisely the position that I am trying to challenge. The resistance to concede any point to an opposing view, particularly one that is ultimately wrong, is common with many ideological arguments. It is as if people feel like they have to completely destroy every aspect of the opposing position in order to win an argument. Unfortunately very few issues are that black and white.The result is dishonesty, insecurity and fanaticism in the eyes of your opposition. So I would say no, admitting the unpleasant truth about spanking while arguing against it does not diminish your case, in fact a respectable case is impossible without it. There is more I would like to add here but I'm replying from my phone, I'll revisit this later.

[endostate]

Spanking works good now, but a broken bond works bad later.

 

Excessive sugar tastes good now, but diabetes feels bad later.

 

I think you're right, if a nutritionist feels like they have to completely destroy every aspect of the sugar tasting good in order to win an argument about nutrition, I may see them as dishonest, insecure and fanatical.

[RyanT]

You're right, rape is a good example. If you were to tell a rapist that rape doesn't result in sex, they would give you a raised eyebrow. It is necessary to concede that their crime works because otherwise you have no credibility with them and any further argument is pointless.

 

'credibility with a rapist'? Seriously? 

 

Reckon further argument is pointless the minute you realize your dealing with someone so broken inside

they have no way of processing the immorality of such an act.

 

Which to be honest mate is the vibe I'm getting here...

[Ruben Zandstra]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here, but I'm really trying. I've read this post many times and still don't think I'm getting the point. Would you be able to expand or rephrase? In this analogy is it the child or the parent who becomes addicted? I guess in my earlier post I was focusing mostly on how the child is effected, and as a child I never acquired a taste for being spanked, no matter how many times I got spanked.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, maybe I wrote it down in a convoluted way. I'm usually trying to be precise and articulate in what I submit here, and then I tend to get my thoughts all tangled up

 

In the analogy the abusive parent is addicted. When an abuser notices "short term positive effects", that can only be because he does not bond with the child emotionally, and is addicted to the method of force. Which, when applied for the first time is a sickening experience to anyone who is not a sociopath or destructive in some fundamental way. It's like a first cigarette. Similarly, if a parent who strikes is still bonded with the child, it feels horrible, devastating, and the intended "result" is empty and meaningless. There is no positive short term result.

 

I am very sorry about your terrible father and the abuse you suffered.

[Wiltin]

'credibility with a rapist'? Seriously? 

 

Reckon further argument is pointless the minute you realize your dealing with someone so broken inside

they have no way of processing the immorality of such an act.

 

Which to be honest mate is the vibe I'm getting here...

 

Sure, except this isn't about rapists, it's about spankers. Are you suggesting that parents who spank incapable of change?

[RyanT]

Sure, except this isn't about rapists, it's about spankers. Are you suggesting that parents who spank incapable of change?

 

Well you say that as if there's some profound distinction?

(Which of course in 'current mainstream society' there is) 

but aren't they both just different forms of abuse?

 

Certainly though I'm not suggesting that all parents who hit incapable of change,

 

but when you consider that this means totally abandoning lie's like,

''I spanked because I love my kid and want them to be a good person''

 

and accepting the responsibility that they inflicted irreparable damage 

on a defenseless child, simply as a means to alleviate their own anxieties....

 

It's 'a really big ask'? Especially for people who've already demonstrated themselves to be morally very weak. 

[PatrickC]

I'm curious why this distinction or concession has come up for you personally.

[Wiltin]

Well you say that as if there's some profound distinction?

(Which of course in 'current mainstream society' there is) 

but aren't they both just different forms of abuse?

 

Certainly though I'm not suggesting that all parents who hit incapable of change,

 

but when you consider that this means totally abandoning lie's like,

''I spanked because I love my kid and want them to be a good person''

 

and accepting the responsibility that they inflicted irreparable damage 

on a defenseless child, simply as a means to alleviate their own anxieties....

 

It's 'a really big ask'? Especially for people who've already demonstrated themselves to be morally very weak. 

 

I still think you are treating it as though it is more black and white than it is. Do you think that parents who spank (still a majority in most places) don't love their children and want them to be good people? I think ignorance and tradition account for a lot and I don't think you can correctly say that all parents spank for any one particular reason.

 

I'm curious why this distinction or concession has come up for you personally.

 

It came up in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40196-a-disgusting-video-on-youtube-titled-how-to-discipline-our-child/

 

I have a bit of a fetish for controversy.

[Wesley]

I still think you are treating it as though it is more black and white than it is. Do you think that parents who spank (still a majority in most places) don't love their children and want them to be good people? I think ignorance and tradition account for a lot and I don't think you can correctly say that all parents spank for any one particular reason.

People say things all the time that is countered by the evidence.

 

The number of very large people who have told me they want to lose weight and still eat crap and don't workout would astound you. The only conclusion that can be derived from that is that they do not actually want to lose weight.

 

The same can be said with spanking. It takes a few minutes work as to research best outcomes for children as far as connection, empathy, raising good children, etc. The fact that they do not research and do not figure things out and take actionable steps to improve proves that that is not their goal.

 

As I said, the children are not particularly a part of the equation when parents decide to spank. What is are the parent's emotions and inability to properly process them in a healthy way and so they act out. They can say all they want that they love their kids and would do what is best for them, but until they spend a little time researching and taking steps to improve, I simply do not believe it.

[Wiltin]

People say things all the time that is countered by the evidence.

 

The number of very large people who have told me they want to lose weight and still eat crap and don't workout would astound you. The only conclusion that can be derived from that is that they do not actually want to lose weight.

 

The same can be said with spanking. It takes a few minutes work as to research best outcomes for children as far as connection, empathy, raising good children, etc. The fact that they do not research and do not figure things out and take actionable steps to improve proves that that is not their goal.

 

As I said, the children are not particularly a part of the equation when parents decide to spank. What is are the parent's emotions and inability to properly process them in a healthy way and so they act out. They can say all they want that they love their kids and would do what is best for them, but until they spend a little time researching and taking steps to improve, I simply do not believe it.

 

I think you underestimate the ignorance and social conditioning in people. Most people don't have a scientific approach to social issues or life in general. To some parents, 'research' involves looking at scripture, consulting their pastor, or getting advice from friends/relatives. Consulting scientific literature for parenting advice might be considered parallel to consulting a physicist about how to make friends. Many overweight people struggle to lose weight because they don't understand the nature of the food they are eating. I think you are right to some extent, but you're taking a one sided approach. A fat person may struggle with cravings and have cognitive dissonance about what they are actually eating, but they may also not even have a clue what is wrong with some of the food they are eating, what portion size is reasonable, or how much exercise they need. I think it is very presumptuous to assume that they therefore don't want to lose weight, of course they do.

[tjt]

I'm sorry, maybe I wrote it down in a convoluted way. I'm usually trying to be precise and articulate in what I submit here, and then I tend to get my thoughts all tangled up

 

In the analogy the abusive parent is addicted. When an abuser notices "short term positive effects", that can only be because he does not bond with the child emotionally, and is addicted to the method of force. Which, when applied for the first time is a sickening experience to anyone who is not a sociopath or destructive in some fundamental way. It's like a first cigarette. Similarly, if a parent who strikes is still bonded with the child, it feels horrible, devastating, and the intended "result" is empty and meaningless. There is no positive short term result.

 

I am very sorry about your terrible father and the abuse you suffered.

 

Ah, now I see. I understand, thank you for clarifying. You have a good point around the connectedness between child and parent, but I still believe that spanking can get the parent the results he desires in the short term. I guess I'm applying a bit of a utilitarian analysis, in that it might be emotionally challenging the first couple of times the parent does it, but the 'benefit' of winning control over the child outweighs the 'pain' that it causes the parent, from their dysfunctional, messed up perspective.

 

For example, just watch this insanely disturbing confessional of a parent who is proud of the results that using a paddle on her child has had.

 

(OH NO, the video is now private! That is no surprise... these people feel the need to hide. Anyways it was posted on this thread, and really demonstrated the points I'm trying to make: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40196-a-disgusting-video-on-youtube-titled-how-to-discipline-our-child/?hl=paddle#entry368597)

 

I realize that it might sound like I'm defending aggressive parents, but I'm really not. Don't forget that in my own personal utilitarian perspective the short term "gain" (which is really not a gain) is never, ever, ever worth a dysfunctional long term relationship with your child, nor is it worth the emotional damage you are causing the child.

 

The fact of the matter is, there are better, healthier, and more productive ways of interacting with your child without ever physically harming them or emotionally scaring them, and instead nurturing their growing empathy and fostering their ability to negotiate and be happy in general.

[RyanT]

I still think you are treating it as though it is more black and white than it is. Do you think that parents who spank (still a majority in most places) don't love their children and want them to be good people? I think ignorance and tradition account for a lot and I don't think you can correctly say that all parents spank for any one particular reason.

 

You realize that's not an argument right?

 

Indeed you pretty much answer your own question,

 

People driven by 'ignorance and tradition' blatantly don't have the facilities to reason?

therefore how can they understand what it is to love or be a good (virtues) person?

[JamesP]

Look, when people say that spanking "works," what they mean is that it produces well-adjusted, high functioning adults. "I was spanked, and I turned out fine," is what "works" means here.

 

If you are going to redefine what "works" means by talking about the parents' unconscious impulses, or by some foggy notion of obedience (which is rather in dispute), then you are no longer talking about the same thing that pro-spankers are talking about.

 

What I'm wondering is why you are pursuing the conclusion that spanking "works" for some definition of "works" that nobody uses.

[PatrickC]

It came up in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40196-a-disgusting-video-on-youtube-titled-how-to-discipline-our-child/

 

I have a bit of a fetish for controversy.

 

Nah, not buying this as a reason.

[MMX2010]

I think you underestimate the ignorance and social conditioning in people. Most people don't have a scientific approach to social issues or life in general. To some parents, 'research' involves looking at scripture, consulting their pastor, or getting advice from friends/relatives.

 

I think I can summarize your argument as follows:  (1) Because most people suffer from "ignorance and social conditioning", the FDR community cannot expect to either use scientific arguments or moral appeals to non-coercion to make spankers stop.  (2) Because most people don't respond to scientific arguments or moral appeals to non-coercion, Wiltin suggests that we "admit that spanking 'works'" in order to gain "credibility" with spankers.  (3) Curiously, science can easily evaluate whether Wiltin's methods are truly better than FDR's methods.  But I doubt that science has compared the two methods.  (4) Worse, we have testimony that FDR's method does work!  How often do Stef and MMD mention, "Just got an email from a listener, 'Thanks, Stef, for all you do; as a result of your videos, I'm no longer spanking my children.'"? 

 

Wiltin, is my summary accurate? 

 

Ah, now I see. I understand, thank you for clarifying. You have a good point around the connectedness between child and parent, but I still believe that spanking can get the parent the results he desires in the short term. I guess I'm applying a bit of a utilitarian analysis, in that it might be emotionally challenging the first couple of times the parent does it, but the 'benefit' of winning control over the child outweighs the 'pain' that it causes the parent, from their dysfunctional, messed up perspective.

 

I've never met a parent who said, "Spanking works because it gives me what I want."  It's always been, "Spanking works because it gives my child something he/she needs." 

[Wiltin]

Look, when people say that spanking "works," what they mean is that it produces well-adjusted, high functioning adults. "I was spanked, and I turned out fine," is what "works" means here.

 

If you are going to redefine what "works" means by talking about the parents' unconscious impulses, or by some foggy notion of obedience (which is rather in dispute), then you are no longer talking about the same thing that pro-spankers are talking about.

 

What I'm wondering is why you are pursuing the conclusion that spanking "works" for some definition of "works" that nobody uses.

 

I don't think spanking 'works' in the most broad sense, I was careful to define what I meant and I'm using the word 'work' correctly. If a parent says that spanking works for them, they aren't necessarily talking about creating well adjusted, high functioning adults at all. A pro-spanker in debate might use it that way, but I'm talking about run of the mill spanking parents who haven't given it much thought. They are looking at short term results and speaking to the obedience and perceived good behavior of their children at the time, which is what I'm getting at. If you want, replace the word 'works' with 'produces short term results'.

 

I am not talking about a foggy notion of obedience, I'm using the word by it's dictionary definition, and accurately so.

Nah, not buying this as a reason.

 

If you read the thread you'll see I commented on my own history with spanking.

[MMX2010]

I don't think spanking 'works' in the most broad sense, I was careful to define what I meant and I'm using the word 'work' correctly.

 

Disagree with you completely. 

 

The most common defenses of spanking are:

 

(1) "Spanking works because it creates obedient children."  (Not true.) 

 

(2) "Spanking works because it creates compliant children."  (True, but this is only a half-explanation.  And the full explanation is, "Spanking works because it creates compliant children without creating long-term negative consequences." The full explanation is not true.)

 

(3) "Spanking works because it teaches children to respect authority."  (Not true, because spanking teaches children to disrespect authority (especially scientific, non-forceful authority) in favor of respecting force/domination/violence.) 

 

In other words, the only way you can say, "I'm using the word 'works' correctly." is to ignore what spankers actually mean when they use the word "works". 

[Wiltin]

I think I can summarize your argument as follows:  (1) Because most people suffer from "ignorance and social conditioning", the FDR community cannot expect to either use scientific arguments or moral appeals to non-coercion to make spankers stop.  (2) Because most people don't respond to scientific arguments or moral appeals to non-coercion, Wiltin suggests that we "admit that spanking 'works'" in order to gain "credibility" with spankers.  (3) Curiously, science can easily evaluate whether Wiltin's methods are truly better than FDR's methods.  But I doubt that science has compared the two methods.  (4) Worse, we have testimony that FDR's method does work!  How often do Stef and MMD mention, "Just got an email from a listener, 'Thanks, Stef, for all you do; as a result of your videos, I'm no longer spanking my children.'"? 

 

Wiltin, is my summary accurate? 

 

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this but I'll have a crack. I'm not criticizing FDR's methods or suggesting anything negative in the way Stefan or anyone else here approaches this issue.

 

I am looking for agreement on what I consider to be an elementary fact about the effectiveness of violence, and by extension spanking. There is a lot of resistance here and that I why I think it is worth exploring. A lot of us have had bad experiences with spanking and I don't think we should allow that to affect our objectivity, otherwise those we argue with will recognize a strong bias in us.

 

Disagree with you completely. 

 

The most common defenses of spanking are:

 

(1) "Spanking works because it creates obedient children."  (Not true.) 

 

(2) "Spanking works because it creates compliant children."  (True, but this is only a half-explanation.  And the full explanation is, "Spanking works because it creates compliant children without creating long-term negative consequences." The full explanation is not true.)

 

(3) "Spanking works because it teaches children to respect authority."  (Not true, because spanking teaches children to disrespect authority (especially scientific, non-forceful authority) in favor of respecting force/domination/violence.) 

 

In other words, the only way you can say, "I'm using the word 'works' correctly." is to ignore what spankers actually mean when they use the word "works". 

 

Number 1 is true. Spanking creates obedience in children, just like violence makes slaves work, and torture makes prisoners talk. To me it seems rudimentary, I know it deductively, I know it from observation, and I know it from personal experience. If you really don't think that violence can be used to make a child obey you, I'd like to see your reasoning.

[MMX2010]

 If you want, replace the word 'works' with 'produces short term results'.

 

The only thing worse than a bad argument is a non-argument, and "X produces short term results." is a non-argument, because everything produces short-term results. 

 

Picking up a two ounce rock, and replacing it after four seconds, "produces short term results". 

 

Thinking about yelling for two seconds, then deciding not to yell, "produces short term results".

 

Sitting around and doing nothing for two hours also "produces short term results". 

 

So first you have to define what those short-term results are, then you have to scientifically prove that spanking produces those specific short-term results. 

 

Strangely enough, you've already attempted this.  But all we're left with is, "Spanking works by relieving parental anxiety but always by inflicting negative short-term and long-term results on children." 

 

Tellingly, no spanker has ever admitted this either directly or indirectly.  (An indirect admission would be something like, "I don't really think about my children's needs when I spank them.  I just know it makes me feel better, somehow, and I'm proud of this." or "I don't know whether spanking is good for my children, but I know it's good for me.") 

Number 1 is true. Spanking creates obedience in children, just like violence makes slaves work, and torture makes prisoners talk.

 

You're missing the essential phrase "compared to what".

 

Spanking doesn't create obedience in children compared to the heightened obedience parents get through non-violence. 

 

Violence doesn't make slaves work compared to the heightened worker productivity that results through non-slavery. 

 

Torture doesn't make prisoners talk (i.e. - tell useful, truthful information) compared to the heightened "talking" that results through non-torture. 

 

-----------------------------

 

Worse, I think you're missing the importance of "compared to what", because you-yourself have little, if any, experience getting parents to stop spanking their children.  You only have disagreements with the FDR community with regard to its anti-spanking message. 

 

But you can't (or won't) compare your (perceived to be) improved anti-spanking message to FDR's anti-spanking message. 

[Wiltin]

The only thing worse than a bad argument is a non-argument, and "X produces short term results." is a non-argument, because everything produces short-term results. 

 

Picking up a two ounce rock, and replacing it after four seconds, "produces short term results". 

 

Thinking about yelling for two seconds, then deciding not to yell, "produces short term results".

 

Sitting around and doing nothing for two hours also "produces short term results". 

 

So first you have to define what those short-term results are, then you have to scientifically prove that spanking produces those specific short-term results. 

 

Strangely enough, you've already attempted this.  But all we're left with is, "Spanking works by relieving parental anxiety but always by inflicting negative short-term and long-term results on children." 

 

Tellingly, no spanker has ever admitted this either directly or indirectly.  (An indirect admission would be something like, "I don't really think about my children's needs when I spank them.  I just know it makes me feel better, somehow, and I'm proud of this." or "I don't know whether spanking is good for my children, but I know it's good for me.") 

 

You're missing the essential phrase "compared to what".

 

Spanking doesn't create obedience in children compared to the heightened obedience parents get through non-violence. 

 

Violence doesn't make slaves work compared to the heightened worker productivity that results through non-slavery. 

 

Torture doesn't make prisoners talk (i.e. - tell useful, truthful information) compared to the heightened "talking" that results through non-torture. 

 

-----------------------------

 

Worse, I think you're missing the importance of "compared to what", because you-yourself have little, if any, experience getting parents to stop spanking their children.  You only have disagreements with the FDR community with regard to its anti-spanking message. 

 

But you can't (or won't) compare your (perceived to be) improved anti-spanking message to FDR's anti-spanking message. 

 

Whoa, back up the truck, you've missed the point entirely. This kind of over the top reaction to my simple statement is the problem I am trying to address. Of course I don't need to prove scientifically that violence works, it is a basic reality that we are all painfully aware of whether we like to admit it or not.

[MMX2010]

Whoa, back up the truck, you've missed the point entirely. This kind of over the top reaction to my simple statement is the problem I am trying to address. Of course I don't need to prove scientifically that violence works, it is a basic reality that we are all painfully aware of whether we like to admit it or not.

 

Stefan's approach is not an intellectual exercise, but an emotional one that forces parents to see the disconnect between their claims, (such as, "I love my children, and want what's best for them."), and their actions, (such as spanking them). 

 

You can neither understand Stefan's message by having intellectual disagreements over definitions, nor by addressing the posters in this thread (i.e. - me) in an intellectual / non-emotional way, nor by dismissing our emotional reactions as "over the top". 

 

Intellectually, you can imagine robotic-parents who make no claims of "loving their children", "wanting what's best for them", "caring about their children's needs".  (So can I.)  But practically, you cannot find 100 parents in America who think this way.  And so your objections hat reduce to, "This approach won't work on robotic-parents...." is rejected because of the wide-spread non-existence of such robotic-parents! 

[Wiltin]

 

Stefan's approach is not an intellectual exercise, but an emotional one that forces parents to see the disconnect between their claims, (such as, "I love my children, and want what's best for them."), and their actions, (such as spanking them). 

 

You can neither understand Stefan's message by having intellectual disagreements over definitions, nor by addressing the posters in this thread (i.e. - me) in an intellectual / non-emotional way, nor by dismissing our emotional reactions as "over the top". 

 

Intellectually, you can imagine robotic-parents who make no claims of "loving their children", "wanting what's best for them", "caring about their children's needs".  (So can I.)  But practically, you cannot find 100 parents in America who think this way.  And so your objections hat reduce to, "This approach won't work on robotic-parents...." is rejected because of the wide-spread non-existence of such robotic-parents! 

 

Again, I'm not suggesting that Stefan's method doesn't work or that I have a better way. If a parent is to the point where they are emotionally receptive to the damage they are doing by spanking then there is no need to make any intellectual concessions, an emotional argument is going to do the job. I think for any parent to stop spanking the final necessary step is to emotionally connect in that way, I'm not trying to take away from this. Still, my point remains, even if it is just an exercise in intellectual honesty. They may be few but there are parents who would argue on an intellectual level that spanking works, and while you could argue they are beyond help, an intellectual debate does require an objective approach.

[MMX2010]

Again, I'm not suggesting that Stefan's method doesn't work or that I have a better way.

 

And that, precisely, is why you don't understand the counter-arguments against your ideas.  You're not out-in-the-world trying to save more children from being spanked, using your methodology; you're, instead, arguing with people on this message board regarding an ideology that you fail to implement. 

 

 

 

 

Still, my point remains, even if it is just an exercise in intellectual honesty. They may be few but there are parents who would argue on an intellectual level that spanking works, and while you could argue they are beyond help, an intellectual debate does require an objective approach.

 

You can't win this debate by appealing to "intellectual honesty" because it's intellectually dishonest to say that there may be a few parents who argue on an intellectual level that spanking works.  You, instead, have to demonstrate that such people exist, and in large numbers, and that your new and improved concession to the supposed "effectiveness of violence" works on them. 

 

Appealing to "may"s is non-argument. 

 

Worst of all, every parent who you claim defends spanking intellectually can easily be asked three questions:  (1) Do you love your children?  (2) Do you want what's best for them?  (3) Do you spank your children out of love? 

 

Once a parents answers "Yes, Yes, and Yes" they're defending spanking emotionally and morally, not intellectually.  (And I assert that every spanking parent will say Yes, Yes, and Yes.) 

[Wiltin]

And that, precisely, is why you don't understand the counter-arguments against your ideas.  You're not out-in-the-world trying to save more children from being spanked, using your methodology; you're, instead, arguing with people on this message board regarding an ideology that you fail to implement. 

 

 

You can't win this debate by appealing to "intellectual honesty" because it's intellectually dishonest to say that there may be a few parents who argue on an intellectual level that spanking works.  You, instead, have to demonstrate that such people exist, and in large numbers, and that your new and improved concession to the supposed "effectiveness of violence" works on them. 

 

Appealing to "may"s is non-argument. 

 

Worst of all, every parent who you claim defends spanking intellectually can easily be asked three questions:  (1) Do you love your children?  (2) Do you want what's best for them?  (3) Do you spank your children out of love? 

 

Once a parents answers "Yes, Yes, and Yes" they're defending spanking emotionally and morally, not intellectually.  (And I assert that every spanking parent will say Yes, Yes, and Yes.) 

 

What exactly do you think my 'ideas' are? Violence can be used to get children to obey. Please, for goodness sake, if you disagree with that, provide some reasoning. Everything else you are bringing up is beside the point of this thread. I find your attempt to undermine me by suggesting I'm not 'out there fighting the good fight' really insulting. I have discussed spanking with my brother who has children and several friends and coworkers with positive results. I'm a bus driver and I've intervened on a child's behalf on two occasions by bringing a child to sit at the front with me when I've had a parent raise their voice and threaten their children on my bus. I'm not here trying to push an agenda, I am poking a soft spot because this community seems far too reactionary and I'd like to see a little more objectivity on this issue.