Bible and Spanking Children

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Mossy wrote:
On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline.

Ummm, actions of one parent have zero relationship to isolating variables. Now if you can show that parents who avoid CP tend to in general also come up short on positive reinforcement, you might have a case -- but I think the situation is quite the opposite, parents who avoid CP tend to do so as a conscious choice, and compensate for lack of negative reinforcement with higher quantity (and hopefully quality) of positive reinforcement.

Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.

Those studies are plentiful, and quite conclusive -- you just don't like their conclusion. Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.

Herte's two links you might find curious:

Crime and religiosity
Intelligence and religiosity

have fun.

So the question is, why then have I used it. Well, empirically it has worked for me.

Empirically, driving without the seatbelts worked for me -- I am still alive! Screw the studies about the seatbelt usefulness, my "empirical experience" trumps 'em all!

P.S. I have three kids, and i don't administer CP. the two who are old enough to actually have meaningful behavior patterns, are both wonderful children. I also helped raise my sister (13 years my junior) with similarl methods and results. Personal experience against personal experience, eh?..

 

[Mossy]

Mossy wrote:
What would it take to convince you that you're wrong?

That it hadn't worked for me.

Again, the question isn't whether or not it is effective - it certainly is effective, you can beat any animal into submission. The question I asked was what would it take to convince you it isn't necessary.

Mossy wrote:
On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline.

Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.

According to your answer, the studies would be biased in your favor (a parent who doesn't use CP and is lousy at other forms of discipline). I haven't seen any studies - biased or not that suggest this is the case.

Are there any studies which indicate that a lack of CP produces any of the above listed effects?

So the question is, why then have I used it. Well, empirically it has worked for me.

That isn't the question. The fact that you aren't in prison (due to your parents using CP) isn't an advocacy. My step-father used to beat me into unconsciousness and I'm not in prison either - is that an advocacy of his parenting technique? Of course not, and I'm sure you agree.

I see no detrimental features, quite the contrary. I think my child is well on her way to being a happy, productive, member of society.

I am sincerely happy for you, but that isn't the question. The question is, "is it necessary".

If it is not necessary, why would any parent willingly inflict pain on their child.

Mossy wrote:
It would go a long way toward encouraging me to change my mind (and perhaps be more tolerate of those who use CP) if you could show anything that would support the belief that using CP is necessary (i.e. that the damage done by not using it is worse than the damage done by using it).

Tolerance is a weird term here. If you mean it like you have no choice but to tolerate the Christians exist or that rap music exists. I can understand that, you have to tolerate them (it) because you have no choice.

I thought it was clear what I meant, but just to clarify: I meant tolerant in that I might be less morally outraged, less revulsed, etc.

I really don't want to change anyone's mind. I was naive again in thinking I could exchange views on child rearing from the Christian point of view (there is so much more, CP is a very small part of it), but I see that that is not possible.

It is possible, at least with me. And I have stated very clearly what it would take, show me anything that indicates a child raised without CP is at a disadvantage in life (specifics mentioned above) and I will, at the very least, reconsider my beliefs.

So now I ask again, is it possible that you will reconsider your beliefs? Or is there absolutely nothing that will even give you cause to validate your beliefs on something as important as child rearing?

Mossy wrote:
Now that I've clearly stated what it would take for me to reconsider my beliefs, and with that in mind, what would it take for you?

As I said before, that it didn't work. And that the prediction of atheists came true regarding the consequences of CP. I don't see those predictions coming true in the Christian community I know. [/B]

Effective is not the same as necessary. You can beat any puppy into submission, does that mean that it isn't more beneficial to use more humane methods?

I'm not sure what you mean with the "predictions" comment.
-Ed

[edited to fix typo]

 

[Paradox]

Paradox wrote:
And what is the 'correct' answer from an ethical point of view?

The law.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm

I'm sorry but I have to understand you have no more arguments left to support your position.

And how many would I have to present before you even blink?

That independence like you see really makes you dependent. And the surrender to High Authority sets you free.

Your detouring the issue with vague oxymorons. Coercion is not freedom. A local stop by your nearest dictionary should help.

Your characterization (attacking the messenger thing) is distracting from the issue. I think the discussion is of substance.

Then, by all means, explain to me the substance of your stance aside from:
1- It's written in the bible...once.
2- It 'works'.

I have always said that most atheist are elitist. And it doesn't get any more evident than this.

This is not elitist in the least because it is not simply concerning me. If there is a vanity that seems to exude, then it's simply because I'm rather content not being a self-belittling person...and in not having the sort of mindset that would view other people with the same tint.

The irony is that when I consider myself weak, I become strong, and those who think themselves strong most times are really weak.

That these oxymorons are, as well, contained in biblical scripture does not magically make them true. Although there is some psychological pertinence to the comment, I think maybe you've been watching The NeverEnding Story a bit to often (which isn't really a bad thing, although...).

Well, your comments warrant the response.


I'm not going to comment on the other stuff you write because for some reason you seem to raise the tone again. I don't want to speculate.

And I really don't want to get into a negative discussion again.

Whose concept of 'negative' yours? Maybe it's not 'negative' at all...it certainly doesn't need to be 'fair', we've dispensed with such trivialities.

Loki wrote:
Agreed ... and those alternatives *always* exist.

Ok, I think we can pinpoint the main difference in our position. You say alternatives always exist. I say no.

So you would actually attempt to exhaust all other 'possible' (in your opinion) alternatives before resorting to CP?

In addition, if you do believe that some children may never need it, and hypothetically saying one may be a child of yours, then how does your biblical quote come into play? It says nothing of the reasons for which the 'rod' should be used, only that it should not be spared. Would you pull it out without exhausting other options for the purpose of filling a 'quota'?

Loki wrote:
And I submit to you that the parent has failed to look hard enough.

So, avoid CP at all cost even when it is the obvious effective tool.

The effective tool?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

That independence like you see really makes you dependent. And the surrender to High Authority sets you free.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Christian]

VD wrote:
Nobody forces an atheist to contribute to charity to help the old lady across the street; so we can tell an atheist's ethical status by her actions. Xians, on the other hand, always act under duress, and thus cannot be known to be ethical. Sorry.

The problem is that our actions must speak louder than our words. The argument can be made that Christians contribute because it is a mandate and out of the selfish act of avoiding heavenly retribution. But the point is that Christians contribute heavely and make a difference around the world for the less fortunate. For those, it doesn't matter the motivation, what matters, is that they are getting help.

Now, take atheists. Most say they contribute. There is very little evidence of this. Where are tons and tons of atheist charitable organizations around the world. Furthermore, atheist make a very small part of the population as a whole, there is no way to know any significant impact from them as a group.

Take a look at statistics around the World:

Atheist in the World

From there:

Atheists actually make up less than one-tenth of one percent of the population in many countries where large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (7.5% nonreligious) and Australia (15% nonreligious).

VD wrote:
Ummm, actions of one parent have zero relationship to isolating variables. Now if you can show that parents who avoid CP tend to in general also come up short on positive reinforcement, you might have a case -- but I think the situation is quite the opposite, parents who avoid CP tend to do so as a conscious choice, and compensate for lack of negative reinforcement with higher quantity (and hopefully quality) of positive reinforcement.

Mine are not examples from real data. I was just pointing out the difficulty in ascertaning what caused a child to be successful or not as an adult. I could have used the opposite examples.

Now, where is the data to your conclusions?

VD wrote:
Those studies are plentiful, and quite conclusive -- you just don't like their conclusion. Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.

This is absolutely false. Here a sample of some conclusions from:
On Research

From there:

Dr. Gershoff herself noted the first problem, that there is no scientific basis for any detrimental outcomes being causeda by corporal punishment: "parental corporal punishment cannot be identified . . . as the cause of these child behaviors" (p. 550). She cites spanking as guilty by association, which would never hold up in a court of law.

The article explains much better what I am not as clear or eloquent to express.

VD wrote:
Herte's two links you might find curious:

You might want to be careful when posting statistics, they are not as impressive as you think:

In "The New Criminology", Max D. schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that
two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without
religious training is about 1/10 of 1%.

With the current atheist population, the ratio seems just about right.

So, with the other link, what is your conclusion? Atheist are smarter that religious people? If this is the case, what inferences are you drawing from that. Atheists are more successful? happier? what? they are just better?

Mossy wrote:
The question I asked was what would it take to convince you it isn't necessary.

The problem with your question is that there is no significant statistical evidence that answers it as you pose it. Here, let me show you, are time outs necessary. Is kissing a child, instead of just hugging necessary? I can have inferences, but I can't answer it that way.

Mossy wrote:
Are there any studies which indicate that a lack of CP produces any of the above listed effects?

Read and judge for yourself:

people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/Larzelere602.html

Mossy wrote:
I thought it was clear what I meant, but just to clarify: I meant tolerant in that I might be less morally outraged, less revulsed, etc.

I think your reaction (response) is irrational. Once you look at the statistics, you will find that you are overeacting and that your response is unfounded.

Lets look at this:
people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/Larzelere02.html

From there

Detrimental child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any disciplinary tactic, not just physical punishment.

So, it seem that CP is beneficial and necessary just because the frequency disciplinary actions diminishes with it.

Feel free to read the whole site (the Sweden study is very interesting)

Mossy wrote:
So now I ask again, is it possible that you will reconsider your beliefs? Or is there absolutely nothing that will even give you cause to validate your beliefs on something as important as child rearing?

You are making it sound like, I have this irrational, out of left field belief based on superstition or similar. This is not the case. If you care to read a little, you will find that my position (although no doubt debatable) is well ground in sound knowledge.

Here read another example:
www.corpun.com/benatar.htm

Paradox wrote:
In addition, if you do believe that some children may never need it, and hypothetically saying one may be a child of yours, then how does your biblical quote come into play? It says nothing of the reasons for which the 'rod' should be used, only that it should not be spared. Would you pull it out without exhausting other options for the purpose of filling a 'quota'?

This is a fair question. I think the spirit of the text is that children must be disciplined when they are young so that they will live a happy life. If you have been paying attention, I have not given my interpretation of the text or made reference to it. From the very beginning, my position on CP has been based on it's effectiveness. If you can please read the links.

 

[Paradox]

This is a fair question. I think the spirit of the text is that children must be disciplined when they are young so that they will live a happy life.

Do you consider happiness anything more than a relative interpretation of events by an individual?

If you have been paying attention, I have not given my interpretation of the text or made reference to it. From the very beginning, my position on CP has been based on it's effectiveness. If you can please read the links/

Very well. Then, in this context, do you believe any act to be improper if it is sufficiently efficient?

This is to say, do you firmly believe that there are no hazardous side-effects to CP, hence it's efficacy isn't hampered by any drawbacks, or do you believe that the efficiency of the method overrules whatever grievances could be raised about it. Basically, at the moment you are administering CP, do you say:

"This isn't harming him/her in any way, and it is constructively disciplining them."

or

"This may harm them, but at least it will surely show them the proper way."

Also, if you do favor CP as a 'last resort' method, how do you, personally, know when you have exhausted all other available options?

---

I honestly hadn't thought about it much before this discussion. All in all, I have no intention of ever using CP, if that makes you feel any better. As I said, I am not giving a blanket backing-up of his entire position, I am merely addressing this specific issue of fairness, and that only under certain assumptions (and also begining to wish I hadn't said anything, because I'm really starting to spend too much time here again).

Is that a bad thing?

And thank you for the backhanded compliment...

Point taken.

Paradox: So you do believe in 'fairness'...but have only skewed the definition to suit the conversation.

PotatoStew: Ok, withdraw the claws for a second, and let me try to clarify, as I don't seem to be getting my point across.

I didn't intend the comment to appear that aggressive and/or derogatory. I simply found it hard to reconcile the term 'fair' with hitting a child because, in effect, they are unlucky. Of course this only digs deeper into a discussion debating the stability of a relative term, so I'll stop.

-- Assuming that a given child is habitually rebellious, and
-- Assuming that said child has been disciplined in all other reasonable manners to no avail, and
-- Assuming that CP is delivered in a controlled, moderated manner,

-- I think that it may possibly be fair to administer CP.

So as to avoid this 'fair' word, would you still agree with you comments with the word 'appropriate' in its place?

If so, I posed this question to Christian as well...when does one know if "all other reasonable manners" have been used? Especially considering that it is CP that treads the line of 'unreasonable' more than most methods.

I think "fair" is an appropriate word here because in the situation outlined above, the alternative is to let the child be rebellious and suffer no consequences for his actions.

Again, this deals directly with how deep we consider the reservoir of non-physical methods to be.

Let me ask you this: Give the exact assumptions I just described (that is, you have tried everything except CP, do you think it would be better to administer CP, or let the child run amok?

One cannot know they have 'tried everything'. I find it implausible to suggest that there aren't always ways to psychologically enforce discipline that does not rely on physical hitting.

Depending upon the child's age, something akin to (as I mentioned long ago) a pat on the hand may indeed serve as the best method only because the child may not acutally understand any verbal explanation. This, I can understand, but there should never be an actual infliction of damage. What would get the point across in this sort of situation is not so much the pat (which would be equivalent to playfully playing the drums on the child's tush), but the look given when the pat is done. Children can understand this.

At the moment that a child develops sufficient cognisance and the ability to express and understand it, CP should never have to be an alternative. If it comes to that point, I suggest that there is are issues in the quality of communication between the parent and the child, or that there are issues in the relationship itself...both these issues being thing which will not be made any better with discipline by physical force (aka fear).

Now here is the fine print to try to avoid further misunderstandings: I think that in most cases, something will work before you get to the CP option, as many of you are saying. However, in this discussion, I am more or less taking Christian at his word that he has tried everything else. I also am assuming that when he uses CP, he uses a minimum of force, and it would probably be a stretch to term it "abuse" while still allowing that word to retain any real meaning.

I place that line at being able to say that the hitting hurt the child. At the moment there is pain, it is abuse, no matter to what ends it is used for (which, true, says nothing of its efficacy...but I find it bothersome to believe anyone would discard the ethical aspect of the act in favor of how well it works).

I didn't say CP was self-discipline, I said that CP (or any form of punishment for that matter) can be a means of *teaching* self-discipline.

Well, of course. But CP focuses on the cessation of the act firstly, and prominently. Only when CP is combined with other non-physical methods (communication-based) can a fruitful explanation of the events (and thus, an actual learning process) occur.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Disengage from attack mode for a moment and read what I'm writing. I never said anything about CP being efficient.

Attack-Mode disengaged.

No, it isn't. (Your turn...)

Yes it is (tag). On a serious note, the difference is the intent of the action. In the case of my analogy, the reaction was not performed in order to 'teach' per se, but to respond to something that was not approved of. In the case of a parent, it can be said that there is an intent to 'teach', but it is still a matter of it being something the parent doesn't approve of.
Now if the slapper genuinely believed their action would help the insulter, then the parallel would fit better.

I don't think I ever said that the child's actions were totally out of their control. Children most definitely have control over their actions. Even if a genetic predisposition for rebelliousness does exist (which I was assuming for the sake of the discussion), the child still has control, it just may be more difficult at times.

well, we didn't delve all that deeply into this aspect. Yes, for the purposes of the conversation it is assumed that 'naughtiness' is inborn, and thus, not within the control of the child (whether this is actually the case or not, I'm not entirely sure, but this was Christian's take on the question, and I responded within that context).

Even if they can control it to a certain extent, they are still in a position where they are at a disadvantage to other children. Now as mentioned before, these are indeed the 'fact of life' and we cannot plead to the universe to change them (although in the case of theism, there is presumably, someone to appeal to...which, I should think, should precede CP as a 'last resort', but I digress...). However, as humans we live in a world constructed by ethics (be they situational and/or meaningless or not). For this reason, we are compelled to review carefully any actions that would fault someone for something they do not necessarily have complete control over.

Tourette's on the other hand, leaves *no* control, if I'm not mistaken. Is it really your position that a child has no control over her actions?

I don't know, specifically. I'll probably do some research as to the issue. I would think the presidposition, as most things, is a mix of nature and nurture.

How can you justify any sort of punishment, if that's the case?

Why should I justify any punishment in this case? It's hard really to give a blanket answer, as different situations present different variables. I would support a 'punishment' if there was an understanding, aforehand, that certain actions would indeed lead to it.

That's beside the point... you still wouldn't send a Tourette's sufferer to her room for insulting you. So if your analogy is valid, then you shouldn't send a child to his room for disobeying you. Again, if a child has no control over her actions, how do you justify any sort of punishment as being fair?

Think I've managed to cover this. Although what my methods are/would be are not actually the issue, as I don't condone CP.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Xian,

Now, take atheists. Most say they contribute. There is very little evidence of this. Where are tons and tons of atheist charitable organizations around the world.

Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.

I donate to charities. Most of them are xian charities -- I don't care, my purpose is to help people rather than to bring loud kudos to my ideology. Phah.

Furthermore, atheist make a very small part of the population as a whole, there is no way to know any significant impact from them as a group.

But that's not the point, bnow -- don't try to change the subject, naughty, naughty! The point is that it's impossible for a xian to be known to be ethical, because they always act under duress. In USSR, for example, various charitable actions were mandatory -- and people performed them; that didn't mean that your average Soviet was significantly more ethical than your average american xian.

Why don't you argue the point, instead of erecting strawmen? Or perhaps you can't do so?..

This is absolutely false. Here a sample of some conclusions from:
[...]
Dr. Gershoff herself noted the first problem, that there is no scientific basis for any detrimental outcomes being causeda by corporal punishment: "parental corporal punishment cannot be identified . . . as the cause of these child behaviors" (p. 550). She cites spanking as guilty by association, which would never hold up in a court of law

BS. Isolating causation out of correlation is an extrenmely complex task, and it's fundamentally impossible in the case of CP because of ethical concerns. Yes, studies in psychology and sociology tend to be much weaker statistically than, say, experiments in physics -- that's all you get; this is no reason for disregarding psychology, you just have to remember that the studies are much less conclusive.

Still, the evidence for dangers of CP, indirect though it may be, is strong; furthermore, and from the review you cited, the only evidence that could possibly be construed to favor CP, is evidence that very mild and very restrained spanking does so... certainly not the biblical rod, eh, Xian?..

You could look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm for references to some relevant studies... Note that this link specifically addresses some of Dr. Larzelere's work on the subject.

With the current atheist population, the ratio seems just about right.

Note that the paragraph you cited spoke not of those who explicitly identify themselves as atheists, but rather of those without religious training -- certainly a number higher than 1%; and yet the presence of such people in jails is less that one tenth of their representation in the population. Furthermore, that link provides many more references, all pointing to the same fact.

So, with the other link, what is your conclusion? Atheist are smarter that religious people?

That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter.

If this is the case, what inferences are you drawing from that. Atheists are more successful? happier? what? they are just better?

Well, I didn't present any inferences, but here are two more hypotheses for you:

1) Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

2) Xianity suppresses one's critical thinking facilities during the developmental years, which are in turn critical to one's intelligence and education development. In effect, xianity makes people dumber.

Which causal model to pick?.. Decisions, decisions...

 

[Darat]

By Christian



Now, take atheists. Most say they contribute. There is very little evidence of this. Where are tons and tons of atheist charitable organizations around the world.


By Victor:

Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.

I can think of several "atheist" charities, in the sense that they are not controlled or inspired by a religious belief system.

What about SCOPE?

http://www.scope.org.uk/cgi-bin/eatsoup.cgi?id=958063124x195x40i185b130
Scope is a national disability organisation whose focus is people with cerebral palsy. With a committed and enthusiastic team of over 3,500 staff and an annual turnover of around £70 million, we lead the way in providing a range of services for people with cerebral palsy, offering them the opportunity to lead fulfilling and rewarding lives.

The organisation now known as Scope was founded in 1952 by a group of parents - Ian Dawson-Shepherd, Eric Hodgson and Alex Moira - and a social worker, Jean Garwood. Together, they wanted to improve and expand services for people with cerebral palsy and founded the National Spastics Society, which merged with the British Council for the Welfare of Spastics in 1963 to become the Spastics Society.

 

[Mossy]

Mossy wrote:
The question I asked was what would it take to convince you it isn't necessary.

The problem with your question is that there is no significant statistical evidence that answers it as you pose it. Here, let me show you, are time outs necessary. Is kissing a child, instead of just hugging necessary? I can have inferences, but I can't answer it that way.

Okay, so there is no statistical evidence that could possible convince you, is there anything at all?

[edited for an afterthought]
According to the above, are you suggesting there is no way to demonstrate that, for example, locking a child in a closet and only feeding him through a slot in the door for a week is unnecessary?

I submit that the simple answer is: that is obviously unecessary because you can accomplish the same results without that extreme measure. All of the parents I know who do not use CP would use this same criteria: they can accomplish the same results without needing to inflict physical pain on their child. Now there is only one question: Are these parents (that don't practice CP) more skilled at parenting (perhaps because they have forced themselves to seek options other than CP, and found that it was equally effective) than those that use CP, or do they simply have better children (which don't require CP - as you said earlier)?
[/edit]

Mossy wrote:
I thought it was clear what I meant, but just to clarify: I meant tolerant in that I might be less morally outraged, less revulsed, etc.

I think your reaction (response) is irrational. Once you look at the statistics, you will find that you are overeacting and that your response is unfounded.

It isn't irrational, it is rational, you just don't agree with me. My position is: the willful infliction of pain on a child is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive. I have plenty of reasons for believing this, and the studies I've seen support my belief.

Am I mistaken? I fully accept that possibility. But until I've changed my position (which is possible), then it is completely rational for me to be revulsed at the practice and defense of something that I believe is barbaric. You don't agree with the studies, but do you really believe I am being irrational?

Mossy wrote:
So now I ask again, is it possible that you will reconsider your beliefs? Or is there absolutely nothing that will even give you cause to validate your beliefs on something as important as child rearing?

You are making it sound like, I have this irrational, out of left field belief based on superstition or similar. This is not the case. If you care to read a little, you will find that my position (although no doubt debatable) is well ground in sound knowledge.

I asked my question because that is exactly what I believe (about your practice of CP). We don't agree with each other on the necessity of CP, and in the context of this discussion, is it not reasonable for me to ask if there is anything that would make you change your mind? Obviously you don't think there is anything wrong with your practice (otherwise I assume you wouldn't do it), so I'm not asking you to admit to something you don't believe - I'm just asking if there is anything that would cause you to rethink your position. It seems like a valid question to me.

Thank you for the links, I'll give them a read (honestly!). Incidentally, I was talking with a friend of mine who is a christian (sidenote, he doesn't believe in CP - he thinks the biblical rod is metaphorical for "discipline": if you love your children, you should discipline them) and a question came up regarding something you said earlier. With so many atheists against CP, and certainly some of these atheists have children - have they all just been lucky enough to have children that didn't require it?

-Ed

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Do you consider happiness anything more than a relative interpretation of events by an individual?

I consider happiness (formal definition) a state of mind. In the context I'm using I mean someone who is fulfilled by the service and accomplishments in her life.

Paradox wrote:
Very well. Then, in this context, do you believe any act to be improper if it is sufficiently efficient?

When I use the word efficient it includes the concept of it being proper (no negative side effects). If CP has negative side effects, it would not be efficient for me to use.

Paradox wrote:
Also, if you do favor CP as a 'last resort' method, how do you, personally, know when you have exhausted all other available options?

There aren't that many.

VD wrote:
Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.

Why silly? There are atheist organizations. And I believe there are atheist charity organizations. Just not very many.

And I disagree, atheism is a belief system.


VD wrote:
The point is that it's impossible for a xian to be known to be ethical, because they always act under duress.

I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.

One more thing, there is no way to know what the motivations are for doing an action. That you say you do it because of the goodness of your heart (this might well be true) does not prove it is true. I can never know what motivates you. What I can know is that you contribute to a charity. That external behavior can be proved.

VD wrote:
BS. Isolating causation out of correlation is an extrenmely complex task, and it's fundamentally impossible in the case of CP because of ethical concerns.

I think this is what I said and you argued against. Here let me refresh your memory:

me:The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline...Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.

you:Those studies are plentiful, and quite conclusive -- you just don't like their conclusion. Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.

And now from the link you present:

A number of researchers have attempted to link spanking with problems in the "spankees'" later behavior -- either during childhood, or adulthood. Some seem to have found links between "corporal punishment and lower IQs, teenage delinquency, adult criminality, marital conflict and spousal abuse." 1 Other research papers found no such relationships. As in many studies of this type, objectivity is often diminished; the results frequently confirm the researchers original beliefs.

None of the studies that we have examined prove a cause-and-effect link between spanking and later problems. A "chicken and egg" situation may exist:

There is little empirical research on the link between childhood corporal punishment and depression.

VD wrote:
Still, the evidence for dangers of CP, indirect though it may be, is strong;

Strong? It is not very strong. There aren't that many studies. Show me the volume of studies that propose what I have been advocating and the correlation to negative consequences.

The real strawman here is your attempt to equate my position with abuse. It is evident that I child who is spanked 5 to 7 times a week will develop aggresive tendencies. I don't need a study to tell me this. This is not my position. I have been absolutely clear about it.

VD wrote:
That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter.

Let me see if I got this straight? Any person that arrives at the conclusion there is no god, must be smarter than the rest who do? Is that it? I really don't have to tell you what I think of this logic.

VD wrote:
Well, I didn't present any inferences, but here are two more hypotheses for you:

1) Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

2) Xianity suppresses one's critical thinking facilities during the developmental years, which are in turn critical to one's intelligence and education development. In effect, xianity makes people dumber.

Which causal model to pick?.. Decisions, decisions...

You have spoken like a true elistist, you know, like the Mussolini, Hitler type. Oh yes, I remember, in the USSR they used to teach a lot about this stuff, Marx, Lenin. Too bad that system didn't work.

The next step according to your model, is to rid the world of *xianist* teach and views, right? Hey, it only makes people dumber.

Let's label them (a star on their cloths maybe) as to know for sure who are the smart ones and who are the dumb ones. So this way, we can expedite productive processes.

The people without the stars on them can opt for special (better, higher) positions in private and public entities (hey, they are the smarter ones, they should be able to do a better job than the people with stars).

Within some generations, humans would recognize that breeding with other smart ones is better than with the dumb ones, right. So, eventually, the world would be mostly made up of smart people.

How am i doing so far?

Hey, Hitler had a better one. Why wait generations to achieve this elite world. Why don't we just cremate all xiants, (that's your label of me, right, you don't even want to use my nick, to you I'm just a xian. I can understand that, Nazis used to call Jews not by their name but by their race, "jew, come over here").

So, decisions, decisions, do want to wait a couple of generations or should we be more expedient?

Mossy wrote:
Okay, so there is no statistical evidence that could possible convince you, is there anything at all?

Ok, I think the most compelling reason why I use it is this. I seldom discipline my 4 year old. When I say this I mean all forms of discipline. She just doesn't misbehave that much. Positive reinforcement works.

As I read more I keep learning more, what I mean is that I'm also learning in this discussion as I go. I got to wonder why is it that I don't have to discipline her that much. The answer is that most of her offenses that warrant discipline are almost none existent.

I think the reason is this (please read the link) from there:

people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/Larzelere02.html

Detrimental child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any disciplinary tactic, not just physical punishment. Therefore, it is the excessive misbehavior that is the actual cause of detrimental outcomes in children. Parents realize that excessive misbehavior will hinder their children’s success in life and want to minimize excessive misbehavior with the best disciplinary methods. They need better information about how to discipline their children in the most effective manner

So my best argument for CP would be that I don't have to discipline my child that much and since the excessive misbehavior is the cause of detrimental outcomes in children, CP curtails detrimental outcomes.

Mossy wrote:
According to the above, are you suggesting there is no way to demonstrate that, for example, locking a child in a closet and only feeding him through a slot in the door for a week is unnecessary?

Common sense would dictate that this is not right. Also if not common sense, the police breaking down the door would.

Ok, but how do you know a time out is necessary. How do you know that leaving a child alone for 5 to 10 minutes isn't harming him psychologically. One could argue that the isolation and abandonment could make the child feel unloved or rejected, that he is not worthy of your presence. Can you honestly argue that a 4 year will *ponder* what he has done and understand the errors of his ways.

Please, I'm not arguing against time outs, I believe they are necessary, good and they work. What I'm trying to show is that it is very easy to take a negative position against a form of discipline.

Hey I could even say I am revulsed at parents who leave their child alone in a room without love and attention for punishment sake. Would that be sensible?

Mossy wrote:
Are these parents (that don't practice CP) more skilled at parenting (perhaps because they have forced themselves to seek options other than CP, and found that it was equally effective) than those that use CP, or do they simply have better children (which don't require CP - as you said earlier)?

I consider myself a skillful parent, i think I'm as versed as the next person trying to raise children. I think that the situation tells you what methods to use.

Let me give you an example. Would you withhold a meal as punishment? Maybe some parents would be outraged at the idea that sending a child to bed without having dinner is a cruel act. But one would have to look at the circumstances before making a judgment.

I remember a trial where a 15-17 year old daughter pressed charges against a mother for slapping her. On first impressions, one would scold the mother for slapping the daughter. It turns out the mother for years had given this child all the love, affection and support that any child could reasonably need. The girl unfortunately got with bad company, and on one incident cursed the mother. The slap was a sponteneous reaction to the outraged of her daughter's disrespect. At least, that what the jury concluded.

Mossy wrote:
It isn't irrational, it is rational, you just don't agree with me. My position is: the willful infliction of pain on a child is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive. I have plenty of reasons for believing this, and the studies I've seen support my belief.

No, the studies do not support your beliefs. Ok, if you can show me the studies that show that what I advocate has been proven to be destructive. I will reconsider my position. In the mean time, your belief is solely based on an internal prejudice. It is irrational because there is no rational basis to sustain it, I mean the belief that it is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive.

Mossy wrote:
Incidentally, I was talking with a friend of mine who is a christian (sidenote, he doesn't believe in CP - he thinks the biblical rod is metaphorical for "discipline": if you love your children, you should discipline them)

I agree with that interpretation. I just don't think CP should be ruled out as a tool.

Mossy wrote:
With so many atheists against CP, and certainly some of these atheists have children - have they all just been lucky enough to have children that didn't require it?

Well, I have to take their word for it right? It seems that way, doesn't it. It seem that no one has ever used a physical action to discipline their children.

From what I can gather, it only takes verbal commands, and maybe looks I guess to make children comply???

 

[mstricky]

Dimossi

Hope I got thename right. Cut the bible crap even if the info was ok 2000 years ago, it's a bit out dated now huh? Listen to one who is experienced....i.e....moi. My three daughters are 39 41 and 43 years old. All are wonderfully sucessful women,well balanced and happy.

I never spanked, hit, smacked any of them at any time in their upbringing.
Why would you want to hit a defenceless child? You are responsible for teaching them about life,what is right and wrong how to socialise, etc. etc. etc.

The basic rule is to praise a child for good acts, good deeds and to explain to them why their wrong doings are not the way to go. We would not as a manager, hit a new employee would we? He/she is learning, learning how to do the job at hand. Why would we strike them if they don't do it correctly? We surely would show them again and again until they get it right. And so it is with offspring...patience, tolerance, teaching, guiding....no need to spank that is cruel, humiliating and borders on paedophilia

 

[Darat]

By Christian

VD wrote:
Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.

Why silly? There are atheist organizations. And I believe there are atheist charity organizations. Just not very many.

And I disagree, atheism is a belief system.

You say it is a belief system. There is an argument for saying it indicates one belief e.g. "There is no God", which is a belief because as they say "you can't prove a negative".

However I am at a total lost how that translates to a "belief system".

If it is a belief system when someone says “I am an atheist" what system are they saying they believe in?

(PS Don't forget that to the majority of humans beings that have ever lived or are living today Christians are atheists e.g. Christian don't believe that the majority of the world's "god(s)" exists.)

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Xtian,

Why silly? There are atheist organizations.

Which exist for the purpose of political action usually -- since USA for example is rather heavily biased against atheism. Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

On the other hand, havinga skeptical organization is IMO quite reasonable -- skepticism is a coherent component of experimental methodology, rather than a lack thereof.

Lastly, I have never heard of explicitly atheistic (as opposed to secular) charities.

And I disagree, atheism is a belief system.

You are wrong. Most atheists have their own belief systems, but there's nothing that unites all atheists except for a lack of belief in god.

I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.

So you see no difference between helping someone freely, and doing so on gunpoint? Riiiight. How 'bout some honesty? It's better to change your stance than to deceive yourself, I think.

Strong? It is not very strong.

Why don't you read that whole page?..

You have spoken like a true elistist, you know, like the Mussolini, Hitler type.

<LOL> Internet law -- you compared your opponent to Hitler, you lose.

The next step according to your model, is to rid the world of *xianist* teach and views, right?

Yes -- but through education, never through force or some other sort of compulsion.

The people without the stars on them can opt for special (better, higher) positions in private and public entities (hey, they are the smarter ones, they should be able to do a better job than the people with stars).

Dude, you really have nothing substantial to go by, eh?..

How am i doing so far?

LIke a typical xian who feels the fundamental valuation of his beliefs threatened -- you demonize your opponents.

 

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
You say it is a belief system. There is an argument for saying it indicates one belief e.g. "There is no God", which is a belief because as they say "you can't prove a negative".
However I am at a total lost how that translates to a "belief system".
If it is a belief system when someone says “I am an atheist" what system are they saying they believe in?

Darat, to believe *there is no god* has implications. This premise leads ot all sort of conclusions. Remember, premise have the nasty habit of leading to conclusions. The logical conclusion that follow from this premise, I call the compilation of these, belief system.

That some atheists don't realize all or most of conclusion that can be derived from this premise is irrelevant. If a premise is correct, one can draw many conclusions.

VD wrote:
Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

Care to show any evidence of this?

VD wrote:
Lastly, I have never heard of explicitly atheistic (as opposed to secular) charities.

You know what, you might be right.

VD wrote:
You are wrong. Most atheists have their own belief systems, but there's nothing that unites all atheists except for a lack of belief in god.

So you are contradicting yourself from one phrase to the other?

VD wrote:
So you see no difference between helping someone freely, and doing so on gunpoint? Riiiight. How 'bout some honesty? It's better to change your stance than to deceive yourself, I think.

Again, you are creating a strawmen here. And you are also using an absurd example. I see no difference between someone saying that they will donate because of the goodness of their heart and someone that says his religion compels him to. How about some sharpness on the issues?

VD wrote:
Why don't you read that whole page?..

How about you reading it. Here again, let me repeat it. There is no evidence or link with what I'm advocating and detrimental outcomes.

Here from the very bottom:

Abusive punishment - There were none among the parents examined.
"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.
"Orange zone" - Parents who spanked frequently but with low intensity.
"Yellow zone" - Parents who spanked moderately.
"Green zone" - Parents who spanked rarely or not at all.

No parents who went beyond hitting into actual abuse were included in the study. They found a major correlation between spanking and long-term harm to children among "Red zone" parents. Among the remaining parents, they found small but significant correlations between the level of physical punishment and later misbehavior among the children at age 8 to 9. Ms. Baumrind said that "the children of parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly." She emphasized that her study did not study how abusive physical punishment harms children. She said that she and other researchers have found ample evidence of that in other studies.

To put you up to speed, I'm advocating green zone.

VD wrote:
Internet law -- you compared your opponent to Hitler, you lose

I wasn't aware of that law, what I am aware of, is the phylosophy you propose is fundamentally the same as his.

VD wrote:
Yes -- but through education, never through force or some other sort of compulsion.

Yes? I am not wrong to compare you to him. And I'm sorry but I have to call you on your intellectual dishonest in this specific comment. How can you educate dumb(er) people? Or are you changing your position that education will rid the world of religion and religious pleople and shying away from this original stance:

{atheists are smarter} That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter. Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

VD wrote:
LIke a typical xian who feels the fundamental valuation of his beliefs threatened -- you demonize your opponents.

With your elitist comments you have demonized yourself.

I can't believe you have the audacaty to come straight out say, "atheist are smarter than religious people or religious pleople are dumb and made dumber by the conditioning" and don't expect to be called on the evil source (premise) of that statement.

 

[Darat]

Darat wrote:
You say it is a belief system. There is an argument for saying it indicates one belief e.g. "There is no God", which is a belief because as they say "you can't prove a negative".
However I am at a total lost how that translates to a "belief system".
If it is a belief system when someone says “I am an atheist" what system are they saying they believe in?

Darat, to believe *there is no god* has implications. This premise leads ot all sort of conclusions. Remember, premise have the nasty habit of leading to conclusions. The logical conclusion that follow from this premise, I call the compilation of these, belief system.

That some atheists don't realize all or most of conclusion that can be derived from this premise is irrelevant. If a premise is correct, one can draw many conclusions.

That isn't a belief system, there is no "creed" or dogma that an atheist must follow to call themselves an atheist.

And Christian which "god" is it that an atheist doesn't believe in? Is it your God? Is it the Hindu God(s)? The Ancient Egyptian Gods? Odin or Loki ?

You are an atheist to the majority of the world's population because they believe your god doesn’t exist but theirs does. Therefore, as far as they are concerned, when you say you believe in “God” you are saying that “I don’t believe in God”.

Yet you seem to believe that your belief system is different from an “atheist”. This is a contradiction.

(Edited for spelling.)

 

[Loki]

Darat,

And Christian which "god" is it that an atheist doesn't believe in? Is it your God? Is it the Hindu God(s)? The Ancient Egyptian Gods? Odin or Loki?

Are you saying I don't exist? Or that I'm not a god? Well, I have been feeling a little 'transparent' lately.

 

[Paradox]

I consider happiness (formal definition) a state of mind. In the context I'm using I mean someone who is fulfilled by the service and accomplishments in her life.

Which sorts of accomplishments, and to whom the 'services' are performed are variables, not constants.

When I use the word efficient it includes the concept of it being proper (no negative side effects). If CP has negative side effects, it would not be efficient for me to use.

What would it take to demonstrate to you at least one negative side-effect of CP?

Paradox wrote:
Also, if you do favor CP as a 'last resort' method, how do you, personally, know when you have exhausted all other available options?

There aren't that many.

I didn't ask how many there were/are. I asked how you personally would know when you've exhausted all others.

I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant/

Aside from the fact that the realm of ethics, by nature, deals specifically with the issue of motivation...

I can't believe you have the audacaty to come straight out say, "atheist are smarter than religious people or religious pleople are dumb and made dumber by the conditioning" and don't expect to be called on the evil source (premise) of that statement/

No more audacity than it takes to say that people who frequently excercise their bodies are more althetic than people who don't.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Care to show any evidence of this?

Of society's attityude to atheism? Sure. In a number of states, atheists are constitutionally forbidden to hold office -- any elected official is required to affirm the existence of the supreme being, or something similar. Bush Sr. (that's the man us used to be POTUS!) said that atheists can';t be patriots and shouldn't be citizens. I can dig up plenty more, if you care.

So you are contradicting yourself from one phrase to the other?

care to be more specific about where the contradiction is?

Again, you are creating a strawmen here. And you are also using an absurd example.

Yes, I am using an absurd example -- it's called reductio ad absurdum. I am showing how absurd your position is when taken to its logical extreme -- a position which you found yourself defending due to lack of careful consideration of your beliefs.

Yes? I am not wrong to compare you to [Hitler]

Care to back up this insane allegation?

And I'm sorry but I have to call you on your intellectual dishonest in this specific comment. How can you educate dumb(er) people?

Oh yeah, people of average intelligence can't be educated -- half of America is full of people who can't write their own name... Oh wait...

You really are grasping at straws here. First of all, it's not clear whether intelligence or faith come first, or indepently; secondly, the difference is significant but not humongous -- it'as not like the top 1% of population intelligence-wise are all atheists; and lastly, vast majority of people can be educated, and in fact good education can improve one's intelligence (or at least one's IQ scores).

You are spilling ad hominem after ad hominem here.

With your elitist comments you have demonized yourself.

<LOL> The wheel is turning but the hampster's dead.

I can't believe you have the audacaty to come straight out say, "atheist are smarter than religious people or religious pleople are dumb and made dumber by the conditioning" and don't expect to be called on the evil source (premise) of that statement.

I said nothing of the sort, you little liar. I proposed such as one possible explanatory hypothesis -- I explicitly said that I am not comitted to any causal model of the observed correlation between IQ and religiosity.

You seem to be quite big on ad hominems and confabulations, xian. How becoming!

 

[Mossy]

Mossy wrote:
Okay, so there is no statistical evidence that could possible convince you, is there anything at all?

Ok, I think the most compelling reason why I use it is this. I seldom discipline my 4 year old. When I say this I mean all forms of discipline. She just doesn't misbehave that much. Positive reinforcement works.

I think there is a misunderstanding with my question. I haven't, with this question, been attempting to get you to justify your use of spanking, or to defend it in any way. Rather, I was trying to find out if there is anything at all that could make you change your mind, anything at all that would cause you to rethink your position. (you addressed this later in the post, I'll address that in a second)

Mossy wrote:
According to the above, are you suggesting there is no way to demonstrate that, for example, locking a child in a closet and only feeding him through a slot in the door for a week is unnecessary?

Common sense would dictate that this is not right. Also if not common sense, the police breaking down the door would.

This would be the criteria I would use as well, with one exception - I don't need the police breaking down my door (or any law for that matter) to decide that if I can accomplish the same thing, with less violent means, then that is a preferable solution (when it comes to raising my children).

I've raised my children without spanking, I know many people that have - and in my limited observation, their children are at least as well adjusted as those children who are subjected to various levels of CP (of course, including what you would call abuse). This isn't scientific evidence, and I'm not claiming that it is, what I am claiming is that I have personally seen evidence that CP is not a necessary component to child rearing. And that is really the only point I'd like to make.

I don't believe that those parents who don't use CP are lying (about their non-use), nor do I believe that they were somehow just blessed with perfect children, or children that didn't require it for some genetic reason. And, although I don't know you, I doubt that you really believe that most people who claim not to use CP are lying or blessed in some way that Christians aren't.

As I've said several times, there is a world of difference between necessary and effective. And while CP may be effective, I've never seen any evidence in my daily life that it is necessary (my observations above).

Ok, if you can show me the studies that show that what I advocate has been proven to be destructive. I will reconsider my position. In the mean time, your belief is solely based on an internal prejudice. It is irrational because there is no rational basis to sustain it, I mean the belief that it is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive.

Finally, I concede that the type of CP you claim to use, according to the studies, doesn't show much (if any) increase in negative behavior.

I stated this earlier, but will restate: All of the studies indicate one thing: the more severe the "CP", the worse the effects. If you truely advocate a light paddling (2 times?) on the bottom, and if you almost never resort to this method - then the difference between your method, and the method of a non-CP parent is negligable (in terms of negative effect on the children that can be identified with a study). The more you administer CP, the worse the negative effects - nearly every study shows the same thing.

There definitely is a range of damage that is proportionate to the amount of CP delivered (according to the overwhelming majority of studies). I guess you could say that I'm playing it safe with respect to my parenting choices. Although, it would be more accurate to say that I honestly believe it is wrong to willfully inflict pain on children as a method for teaching them a lesson.

Mossy wrote:
With so many atheists against CP, and certainly some of these atheists have children - have they all just been lucky enough to have children that didn't require it?

Well, I have to take their word for it right? It seems that way, doesn't it. It seem that no one has ever used a physical action to discipline their children.

From what I can gather, it only takes verbal commands, and maybe looks I guess to make children comply??? [/B]

Do you really question the integrity of any parent that claims to not use physical pain as a parenting device?

If you're interested, the are plenty of books available that discuss disciplinary solutions that don't involve inflicting pain. Time-outs have been mentioned, there are others, most non-religious (and some religious, according to my friend) parenting organizations offer classes and information on this.

-Ed

 

[juryjone]

Christian,

You said:

To put you up to speed, I'm advocating green zone.

and yet if you look at the paper:

"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.

It would seem that you fall squarely in the red zone, since you use a paddle, an "overly severe" form of punishment.

So my best argument for CP would be that I don't have to discipline my child that much and since the excessive misbehavior is the cause of detrimental outcomes in children, CP curtails detrimental outcomes.

Did I misss something here? Where have you proved that your daughter's behavior that drew the paddling would have escalated into "excessive misbehavior" if you used another, less violent, form of discipline? Where have you proved that the reason your child needs infrequent discipline is due entirely to the fact that you paddled her? (Oh, and that's what you did; calling hitting a child with a piece of wood "CP" is like calling the Vietnam war a "police action".)

How do you know that leaving a child alone for 5 to 10 minutes isn't harming him psychologically. One could argue that the isolation and abandonment could make the child feel unloved or rejected, that he is not worthy of your presence. Can you honestly argue that a 4 year will *ponder* what he has done and understand the errors of his ways.

I know you meant this ironically, but on the other hand, you are saying that a 4 year old will ba able to make the distinction between your Biblically-sanctioned use of physical pain and her totally unacceptable use of hitting on the playground to achieve the results she wants. "She took my toy and then smarted off to me so I hit her." "Oh, it's OK for you to do that to me, but I can't do that to her..." Good luck getting a 4 year old to make that distinction.

You are using physical pain to solve a problem. Don't tell me that doesn't teach the child something about how to solve problems.