Difficulty Arguing Against Spanking

[ebznflows]

My friend on facebook posted a meme going around that said "I'm afraid of a world run by adults who were never spanked as kids and got trophies just for participating." I engaged him in discussion on the spanking topic, pointing out the scientific research that it is damaging and doesn't work anyway, and his counter argument basically boiled down to: I know what the science says, but spanking is different from abuse, and I was spanked and I turned out fine and I have a good relationship with my parents. I have friends who don't spank but their kids are spoiled. I won't tell you how to raise your kids, but have never seen not spanking work in raising children. Let's agree to disagree.

 

The mental walls against peaceful parenting are so high and so strong, and there are so very few role models for it. I hope to be one. This friend has no children yet, so I hope when it happens he realizes like I did that there was no actual way I could bring myself to hit my child. I hope a seed of "there are other ways" sticks in his mind somewhere.

 

Does anyone have non-combative strategies they use to advocate for not spanking which might bypass the defensive walls of "I was spanked and turned out fine"?

[Carl Green]

Don't try logic or reason. Connect and agree with him that a world run by people that grew up without having to negotiate other people's wants (getting whatever they want) would be a terrible place to be indeed. If he doesn't think you understand him, he likely won't care much about what you have to say on the matter.

[MysterionMuffles]

Ask him if he would spank his wife, and if he didn't, wouldn't that be spoiling her?

[yagami]

I think it will be pretty simple. You just have to establish a few things in the conversation. First ask him if he knows of the research does he agree with the findings. Second ask him if he believes that it is possible to have exception to rules. Third as him if he believes that spanking is generally a good thing for children. Then you simply ask him if he believes the science is accurate and there are exceptions to rule then doesn't it logically follow this belief that spanking is good for children is simply his personal opinion. If he says this is not just his opinion and points out other people have the same opinion then ask him is it possible for multiple people to have the same opinion that has no baring on reality. If he says everyone he knows was spanked and turned out fine just go back to question two.

[Carl Green]

I'll play devil's advocate here in red to explain a bit better about what I meant in my post above.

 

I think it will be pretty simple. You just have to establish a few things in the conversation. First ask him if he knows of the research does he agree with the findings.

"They didn't do the science on my kids, I know my own kids better than those scientists."

 

Second ask him if he believes that it is possible to have exception to rules.

"not unless I make the exceptions to the rules for my kids. my house, my rules"

 

Third as him if he believes that spanking is generally a good thing for children.

"yes. it shows them how to respect their elders"

 

Then you simply ask him if he believes the science is accurate and there are exceptions to rule then doesn't it logically follow this belief that spanking is good for children is simply his personal opinion. If he says this is not just his opinion and points out other people have the same opinion then ask him is it possible for multiple people to have the same opinion that has no baring on reality. If he says everyone he knows was spanked and turned out fine just go back to question two.

 

...and the last part just puts you in a loop of infinite ignorance...

 

 

The best method to get past the mental walls around peaceful parenting is probably not going to be to attack the walls with logic, but to nicely ask to go through the gate. And they likely won't think you're nice if you don't understand where they're coming from.

[yagami]

I would rebutt that and say that you cant point out your children as an exception to a rule if the results of bad parenting cant show themselves until a future time. For example if you have a 5 year old you are raising you cant point at that child and say "see he's not in jail and I beat him everyday". Also people exercise all the time and dont go off and say well none of that exercise research was done on my child so they aren't exercising. My child is the exception my house my rules. Also I know the mental block is strong and none of this will help. But for me I like to make sure I've made a clear argument before I write people off as hopeless. But if what I just rebutted with isn't enough yea i'd give up lol.

[Ritchey]

I find that if you give people facts, they tend to treat them as opinions with a clipboard. The most effective way I have found is to speak the persons language. A majority of people speak the language of force, so the words rights and respect can be inserted into the conversation with almost no resistance. The basic premise is to get them to agree to an idea and then point out the contradiction in their statement. I've found the easiest way to do that is to just ask questions. for instance...

 

neanderthal: kids need to be spanked to learn respect.

 

you: I don't agree. That's contradictory.

 

neanderthal: How?

 

you: Respect is earned, right?

 

neanderthal: Yeah.

 

you: So if someone hits you, do you respect them very much?

 

At that point in the conversation it will go one of two ways. Either they will be willing to discuss it rationally, or they will double down with crazy.

 

 

Another example....

 

neanderthal: kids need to be spanked or they turn out spoiled.

 

you: I don't agree. People have rights.

 

neanderthal: Hows that?

 

you: I don't have the right to hit you do I?

 

neanderthal: no.

 

you: right, because it is a natural right to be safe and secure in our person and property. Agreed?

 

neanderthal: Yeah, everybody knows that.

 

you: Children are people, so why does it not apply to them as well?

 

 

I've used this quite a few times. and it works very well. A majority of the time, the other person will argue that children do not have rights, but in that situation I just do the same thing to them. Get them to agree to a statement and then point out the contradiction.

 

hope that helps.

[J. D. Stembal]

Ah, brilliant, the cesspool of Facebook discussions. I found it more productive to leave Facebook entirely than to put up with the collective retardation that bubbles to the surface of the Facebook news feed.

 

You can't convince people that spanking is child abuse until they have internalized that their own parents were abusing them by hitting them. No one can convincingly argue that spanking has any efficacy. As Ritchey points out, logically, the premise cannot be proven that hitting children teaches them respect. The reason why you have people supporting spanking is because they are afraid to attack their parents, who obviously spanked them.

 

I would have responded to the meme by saying the world of the last century has progressively deteriorated into a state of constant war, so suggesting that hitting children more will somehow improve our situation is laughable.

[LovePrevails]

[villagewisdom]

I responded once to one of the memes supporting hitting children to teach them discipline and respect. My post was simple. "Your children do not obey you because they respect you. They obey you because they fear you."

[hannahbanana]

I've been talking to my parents about raising children, and they seem relatively receptive...except they stick to the argument that when a child does something really dangerous, spanking acts as a negative reinforcement; if they associate said dangerous action with pain/shock of spanking, they won't do it again. Which I suppose is true, although I think there are better alternatives that could be done instead. But I have difficulty figuring out how exactly to argue that.

[MysterionMuffles]

children don't associate the spanking with the situation that was about to be prevented. It's just disorienting that they get pulled out of something they think they were about to enjoy (like running into a busy street) and then getting hit. This logic fails because the parent is protecting the child from hurting themselves by hurting them. It's like saving a blind man from an oncoming bus passing a cross walk, and then slapping him in the face.

 

Better alternative at a surface level: just pull them out of the dangerous situation.

 

Better alternative at a deeper level: learn how to minimize your kid's probability to get into dangerous situations.

[Lingum]

If this is the kind of empathy this person has for children, how much do you think he/she has for you?

[Josh F]

One tactic is to share your own experience, assuming you have experience with child abuse.  I find this has the added benefit of determining if someone is actually your friend.  For me, I was abused and I no longer talk to my parents, and that is a real possibility they're introducing into their relationship with their kid.  

 

Also express your experience reading that meme, what kind of memories or feelings it brings up for you, etc.  Arguing a point is not Real Time Relationship.

[Bedouin]

Better alternative at a surface level: just pull them out of the dangerous situation. Better alternative at a deeper level: learn how to minimize your kid's probability to get into dangerous situations.

Too right. I know it's a bit OT, but something occurred to me the other day in regards to this whole danger by association thing...First of all, I think it's actually too much of an easy ex-post facto justification. The parent could have (and most likely did have) all manner of other reasons which they're just too dishonest and/or selfish to express. Although I guess this goes without saying. I think that one of the reasons people actually get angry at their children for getting into those situations is embarrassment about the fact that they let their child do so in the first place. I have seen one or two instances where a child is approaching a potentially dangerous situation and the mother comes rushing along, only to unleash or at least show an incredulous fury. This child was walking toward the top of a short flight of stairs and, before I could realise what was going on, the mum came running along from about 10m away where she had obviously not been monitoring the child's movements. Before the child had even noticed her (she seemed intent enough at the fascinating sloped nature of the stairs) she had been picked up by her ankle and strung up upside down, with the mother also providing a little support for the weight of her torso. It all seemed very aggressive and certainly not appropriate. The child was whisked away rapidly, and suspended more or less upside down... Certainly must have been a terrifying experience. So obviously the child's safety was a concern... But when it came to the child's comfort or mental security the mother had bestowed upon herself the right to act out whatever abuse she pleased. It seems like a pretty annoying contradiction to me, but yeah that's besides the point. What I read from the mother's actions was that she was intensely angry at herself for letting the child get so close to danger without intervening beforehand, and that anger was expressed at the cost of the child. Sorry if this is at all verbose lol, I often have trouble expressing my thoughts concisely.

 Back on topic:In the light of the recent NFL-related videos, I have been brushing up on my argumentation skills. I lost my rag at one point and left a few comments which clearly had no effect whatsoever... Even though they were fairly logical. Only success I had was when I lowered my tone and made more abstract arguments from morality. Got into a discussion about UPB, hasn't gone far yet... But it certainly helps to take the focus away from areas where 'opponents' have deep-seated mines in the brain ready to go off if you spend too long lingering. Hence, abstract topics and/or a bit of compassion are some effective means of approaching difficult people. The good old bait and switch, of luring somebody into a position and then pointing out the inconsistency in their approach, that someone mentioned here is also a nice method. A bit more time consuming and tricky though.

[MysterionMuffles]

I think that one of the reasons people actually get angry at their children for getting into those situations is embarrassment about the fact that they let their child do so in the first place.

 

Hmm that's an interesting thought...I need to ponder on that and see if that applies to any other situation why a parent might abuse a child.

And that must have been a horrible sight to see. Jesus Christ Monkey Balls.

[Spenc]

I think a lot of the issue stems from the concept many people have of "a good child".

 

For example, go to a restaurant or a grocery store.  Some couple has brought their children.  Children are noisy, active, curious, adventurous, etc.  Those children run up and down the aisles, make noise, get in your way, etc.

 

People have a tendency to think of these kids as brats.  When they think of good kids, they think of children who sit still, keep their mouth shut, respect authority, do as they are told, don't ask a lot of questions or talk back, etc.

 

I'm not quite sure how I would engage a person who thinks of children in this way on the merits of spanking.  I suspect a willingness to engage in self-knowledge would be required on the part of the other person in order to really get through to them.  I think we all know deep down that we don't want to be quiet, still, compliant automatons, but when society is hellbent on churning these people out, conformity can get in the way of many people willing to admit that the so-called "good kids" are the defects instead of the brats.

[LovePrevails]