So I was talking to my mom...

[AncapFTW]

and I told her that I didn't think you taught a kid anything other than "obey or else" and "obey the one in power" if you punished them by hitting them.  She countered with "I've seen kids that weren't spanked and they are all spoiled brats."  I assume what she actually saw were kids that weren't disciplined at all, but I started wondering if there was any kind of chart or study I could show her about how well kids behave compared to how they are disciplined/not disciplined.

[Koroviev]

This was kind of brought up in another recent post, and the way I look at it is 1) does your mother know for certain that they were not spanked and 2) there is a HUGE difference between being a "push-over" by letting your kids do whatever they want and peaceful parenting. parents who are "push-overs" often seem to have done just as little research into parenting as those who think spanking is the answer, the difference being they do not want to be violent toward their children (I'd assume because they're scared of what others would think of them not necessarily because they think it's best but I could be wrong here). All this is doing is shifting the power structure so all of the power is in the child's hands and the parents generally just become..well...empty shells trying to corral their unruly children around. If your children never learn that you have needs/wants/desires/etc. then absolutely most often they will become spoiled brats but that in no way means you need to beat them. It's a false dichotomy that people fall into all to often.

[Anuojat]

Way for her to dodge and ignore your feelings and concerns. :S

 

Nevermind the "arguement" why isint she apalled and apologizing for terrorizing her child?

[dsayers]

I started wondering if there was any kind of chart or study I could show her

 

No. She already told you that she believes what she believes and that's the way it's going to be. In fact, the way she said it wasn't even honest. I've seen people use the phrase "spoiled brat" to reference somebody stating their preferences or asking for something to be provided for them that they cannot provide for themselves. These people do things like recommend you let a crying baby cry itself to sleep. Can you imagine being trapped under a collapsed building and not only have the terror of maybe nobody will find you, but also the terror that nobody's even looking? Horrendous!

 

I was assaulted as a child too, as well as threatened, and indoctrinated with religion (more threats and shirking of responsibility). I cut my mom out of my life a long time ago. Not long ago, I tried talking to my dad about his coercion and aggression. It was downright bizarre. When I went to mention being picked up by the throat and slammed into a van, he joined me in saying it, in a mocking tone. "I already apologized for that." Apology here meaning asking somebody to treat them like it never happened, NOT feeling bad for doing it because of X reason with Y treatment in place to ensure it never happens again, and Z effort to try and make it up to the wronged party. He also divulged that he believes its necessary in families. He even went on to point out that it's different with friends because they can choose to walk away. I think he thought he was supporting his own position.

 

Anyways, my point is that he's demonstrated that he doesn't care if what he did was right or wrong. He was the parent, so that's that. It would be futile (and even a little damaging) for me to pretend that any amount of logic, reason, or evidence would convince him out of the conclusion he's arrived at NOT by way of logic, reason, or evidence.

[Darknecrosforte]

Strange... my Asian mother started out defensive and then began apologizing. After slow, but apparent effort to change, I am finally treated as a human. I have experienced sharing the journey with others and hearing about how horrible it went. I think the key difference in my case was my mother taking her own contradictory statements seriously. She also intends to reform herself so her grandchildren aren't quarantined because she knows I am 100% fine with total deFOO if she even slips up once.

 

Is there any particular reason you want to convince her to acknowledge the argument?

[Chip]

I love to point out how, very recently, it was culturally accepted and expected for men to keep their wives in line with violence and slave owners/gov to keep slaves in line with violence.

 

"We now recognize the obvious and gross immorality of those, the evil of it. Violence against kids is next to be seen for the brutality and wrong that it is; a change which is already well underway with corporal punishment declining in homes and schools nationwide. You don't want to be one of the last people doing, or even defending, something like that do you?"

 

I love the framing of someone defending spanking (or the state) as akin to those that defended slavery or wife-beating, right to their face. Like Stef points out, our side are not the ones that should be on the defensive!

 

Of course this is just Stef's concepts put in my own voice.

[RCali]

and I told her that I didn't think you taught a kid anything other than "obey or else" and "obey the one in power" if you punished them by hitting them.  She countered with "I've seen kids that weren't spanked and they are all spoiled brats."  I assume what she actually saw were kids that weren't disciplined at all, but I started wondering if there was any kind of chart or study I could show her about how well kids behave compared to how they are disciplined/not disciplined.

 

I'm sorry you went through this, and still are. What I feel like you're doing is trying to pass a needle through a brick wall. If your mother is anything like mine, there's no hope for reason. My mother is too emotional inteligence deficient to see the error of her own speach. When I provide an arguement, she immediately follows with something to dismiss this arguement as valid, and, of course, with complete absurdity, such as you said "I've seen kids that weren't spanked and they are all spoiled brats." 

Or even more insulting - skipping right into another topic. I actually got her to apologize for beating me, the other day. But that wasn't a sincere apologize, at all, she did it, and without even pause for breath, she proceed to ask something else, which was related to my responsabilities. There's always this aggressive deflecting, and there has always been.

But anyway, back to you. Know that you owe your family nothing. They took the responsability to bring you to the world and tend to you. You didn't take the responsability to follow their education and to make them happy. That's never a son's responsability. You may decide to it, but it's never an inherent thing. If you would show them studies backing your words, do so. But do it for yourself, and maybe her, with clear conscience. You owe her nothing. With this, though, I must say I disagree - it wouldn't be a study of behavior that you would show, but a case in morality. It doesn't matter the effects of such, the basis matters. She could be right, and violence could have a positive effect in behavior for children, but it would be promptly invalidated, for its fundament is evil, and nothing resulting from it can be an excuse to practice such.

[AccuTron]

.

I was assaulted as a child too, as well as threatened, and indoctrinated with religion (more threats and shirking of responsibility). I cut my mom out of my life a long time ago. Not long ago, I tried talking to my dad about his coercion and aggression. It was downright bizarre. When I went to mention being picked up by the throat and slammed into a van, he joined me in saying it, in a mocking tone. "I already apologized for that." .

.

Wow, dude, sorry you had to go through that, and surely much more.  

[AncapFTW]

Explaining why it's immoral wouldn't work.  As far as she sees it, it's good if the Bible says to do it and Evil if the Bible says not to.  The Bible says to hit your kids when they don't obey.  That makes it Good.

 

If I show her how it doesn't work, she might consider it to be one of those things that you can just ignore in the Bible, like how it says to stone adulterers and not charge interest on loans to other Christians.

[mahayana]

I started wondering if there was any kind of chart or study I could show her about how well kids behave compared to how they are disciplined/not disciplined.

 

I don't recall ever hearing of such a study but I would be very interested to see the results of one. The only studies I've heard Stef refer to in videos is on the correlation of spanking and adult criminality. I'm always shocked to hear people claim that kids who are not spanked turn out spoiled and behave badly. The opposite is overwhelmingly the case from what I've observed! I'll keep an eye out for any studies on this.

[RCali]

Does the bible really say that? That's very interesting. I've got to read it some time in the future. I'm going through the Quran, right now.

[Darknecrosforte]

Just to clarify on the Biblical writings on spanking, the "spare the rod, spoil the child" section is 100% in the reverse of the intended meaning. When you read those verses and then read about the life of his heir Rehoboam who was the product of his "rod parenting", the real lesson is clear.

 

Solomon says that the rod (symbol of authority of God) will be used to instruct his children (and kingdom). He does mean beat them as well as instruct them.

 

Solomon dies and Rehoboam meets Israel. They implore him to rule with more compassion than Solomon and pledge allegiance to him if he were to lighten up a bit. He says he needs 3 days to consult the elders.

 

The elders say "You should probably ease up because they will obey you." His half-brothers and the younger men (who were likely disciplined with the rod also) say "Screw that". Then Rehoboam returns to the people.

 

He holds up his pinky and says "My finger is thicker than the loins of my father" (very poetic). He says that the whips of his father will be exceeded by the thousand scorpions (probably multi-tipped whips seen in some movies). He basically said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."

 

The kingdom immediately begins stoning the crap out of the half-brothers and Rehoboam is barely able to escape. He spends the rest of his life on the run and in constant skirmishes with the pissed off nation of Israel.

 

So... though "the Bible" technically says "hit your kids", I guess people forget that there are multiple speakers in the book and that reading comprehension isn't just for grade school. 

 

Just wanted you guys to know that some Christians know how to read.

[RCali]

To be clear, it's the reverse of "hit your children". It's a lesson teaching the consequences of violence. Is this correct?

[Darknecrosforte]

To be clear, it's the reverse of "hit your children". It's a lesson teaching the consequences of violence. Is this correct?

 

As far as I've read in the books of Kings and Chronicles, yes. It could be further argued that it specifically illustrates the archetypal result of that parenting style (violent R-type person).

 

The topic of children specifically is one of the most congruent aspects of the Bible. Jesus constantly tells everyone that we all need to be as the children are in their openness and love of life. I just think it's sad that the controlling Catholic church weaponized the Bible against kids.

 

As for other "controversial" topics such as Leviticus and the whole "it's okay to let men rape your daughters" and other strange topics, there are similar cases of omitting information.

[dsayers]

Wouldn't competing interpretations of the same text reveal the subjective nature of it, therefore precluding it from consideration as a source of how people OUGHT to behave?

[AncapFTW]

http://www.openbible.info/topics/spanking_children

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/effective-biblical-discipline/effective-child-discipline/biblical-approach-to-spanking

 

 

Wouldn't competing interpretations of the same text reveal the subjective nature of it, therefore precluding it from consideration as a source of how people OUGHT to behave?

But they can't accept that they're wrong, so it must be all of those other "Christians" that are wrong.

[RCali]

From what I'm finding, reading the Quran, there's not much room for interpretation. There are many contradictions, yes, but in "chop off the heads of the infidels and wrong-doers" there isn't much room for consideration.

[LovePrevails]

kids that weren't spanked were the best behaved in school google it 

[Darknecrosforte]

Wouldn't competing interpretations of the same text reveal the subjective nature of it, therefore precluding it from consideration as a source of how people OUGHT to behave?

 

It isn't the same text. They take single verses without even considering who is speaking, omit the sections that make the consequences obvious, and think they understand. 

 

http://www.openbible.info/topics/spanking_children

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/effective-biblical-discipline/effective-child-discipline/biblical-approach-to-spanking

 

 

But they can't accept that they're wrong, so it must be all of those other "Christians" that are wrong.

 

Ambiguous pronoun use makes it hard to understand, but from what I'm guessing, this is adding on to "interpretations" idea. That would be correct if the incomplete reading of an "If/Then" statement was considered a different interpretation from the whole. It isn't. 

 

I've argued with theologians about this and even they can't concede to the fact that if you read about Solomon and Rehoboam straight through, it is saying to NOT spank children. 

[dsayers]

It isn't the same text. They take single verses without even considering who is speaking, omit the sections that make the consequences obvious, and think they understand. 

The point I'm making, it doesn't matter if this is true or not. The text is written by human beings and human beings have the capacity for error. Since everything it contains has been passed down for centuries and re-translated many times, this capacity for error is exponential. Doesn't this strike you as a ridiculous way for an omnipotent being to communicate what the rules are? Knowing full well how the brain develops, how bias enters into our considerations, etc? Communication is the responsibility of the communicator.

[Darknecrosforte]

The point I'm making, it doesn't matter if this is true or not. The text is written by human beings and human beings have the capacity for error. Since everything it contains has been passed down for centuries and re-translated many times, this capacity for error is exponential. Doesn't this strike you as a ridiculous way for an omnipotent being to communicate what the rules are? Knowing full well how the brain develops, how bias enters into our considerations, etc? Communication is the responsibility of the communicator.

 

I guess we need to rethink using words also. Ironic argument, right? 

[dsayers]

I guess we need to rethink using words also. Ironic argument, right? 

I can't even tell if this has anything to do with what I said as your quoting implies. Could you elaborate please?

[Darknecrosforte]

Using text to say that text has the capacity for error doesn't strike you as odd? There are many subtle claims you make, especially with et cetera which assumes there is a comprehensive list somewhere and the sentence is shortened with its use. There isn't a list, so most of the previous statements were appeals to mockery.

 

It isn't ridiculous to put terms down in writing. We do this with contracts. In fact, things get really ridiculous when we make UNWRITTEN agreements or give only verbal instructions.

 

As for the re-translations, that opens another huge topic that is unlikely to go anywhere.

[dsayers]

Using text to say that text has the capacity for error doesn't strike you as odd?

If I say ambiguous text is useless in the formation of a standard, to leave out the qualifier of ambiguous is dishonest.

 

My position is not controversial. If two people can read "spare the rod, spoil the child" and walk away with interpretations that are opposite, then it is clear that this phraseology is useless as the basis for a standard.

 

Besides, for somebody to say "I refuse to hit my child because this passage says this" or "I hit my child because this passage says this," they are confessing blind obedience for the purpose of absolving themselves of personal responsibility. In this context, both claims are meaningless not for their ambiguity, but for their flawed methodology, as well as the impossible conclusion of "I am not responsible for my voluntary decisions."

[Darknecrosforte]

You DIDN'T say "ambiguous". That was the point.

And I'm simply nit-picking that reading half of a story and drawing the opposite conclusion that would normally be obvious with a complete read is not the same thing as being "ambiguous". The whole point of me bringing up anything related to the Bible is to show that there is a common misconception that the language or meaning is "vague" or has multiple interpretations. It doesn't. Neither is the notion that even half of the verses are considered "spoken by God". Plenty of sections of the Bible are quotations of scumbags used in the narration of a story. 

[dsayers]

You DIDN'T say "ambiguous".

ambiguous - adjective, 1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations source

 

Saying I didn't SAY ambiguous is a way of avoiding the content of what I posted.

[Darknecrosforte]

You originally ask if competing interpretations reveal subjective nature and preclude it from being an acceptable standard for behavior. I rationally give an example of how something that is often considered to have multiple interpretations is actually a case of not finishing the story, which would normally serve as a reasonable way to respond to the question.

 

However, you bring up the capacity for error, as if this isn't evident to the average person as a way to continue the "argument", rather than address the specific points. I am interpreting most of what you're saying as a passive-aggressive ad hominem/argument from absurdity and I'm guessing it's because I'm making the case that a lot of people misread a good book. People blindly following a book for any reason is stupid but I'm wondering why you respond as if I'm saying something more than "people can't read well". If you want to push back so hard because people commonly weaponize the Bible, you can relax because I know this already. It doesn't invalidate anything I said.