Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (2 Viewers)

[John McCain]

If someone is initiating unwarranted force against you, it is only appropriate to defend yourself in proportion to the force used by your attacker. The law recognises this, in cases of self defense against any attacker, you may still be prosecuted if the force you use is deemed excessive. If someone is just pushing you around, and you stab them, you may be prosecuted.

In the case of the police, it wouldn't be appropriate to respond with lethal force under most circumstances. Given the ability of police to escalate a situation to lethal force at any time, when they do so, it is justified to respond with equal force. Lethal force is only justified when the force being used against you is equal and there are no other means of escape from a situation. Obviously your intention would never be to directly kill a police officer, and it would be preferable to simply wound them in such a way that allows your escape, but when using lethal force what injuries will result is unpredictable and this unfortunate outcome may eventuate.

 

[Planck]

It's never acceptable. It's coercive violence used to program an individual. It's attacking someone weaker than you because they haven't conformed to your view of the situation. Absolutely unconscionable in any circumstances. If it's considered to be the only way of communicating with a child then you're a terrible parent, or have a very limited imagination.

 

[Planck]

Clearly my parents' methods of discipline worked far more effectively than yours did if you consider killing a police officer a just "defence" for being arrested on a drug charge.

What an absolutely ridiculous and fatuous claim for you to make, Cat. Clearly your parents methods of discipline didn't work in any way, shape or form, as you've proven time and time again you're unable to make a logical argument in NCAP. Anecdote is not the singular form of data and 'just because' doesn't constitute an argument. Using Ad-Homs as the basis for your ENTIRE argument, only garners similar treatment in response and proves that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

 

[*TRUE*]

It's never acceptable. It's coercive violence used to program an individual. It's attacking someone weaker than you because they haven't conformed to your view of the situation. Absolutely unconscionable in any circumstances. If it's considered to be the only way of communicating with a child then you're a terrible parent, or have a very limited imagination.

It is not 'attacking' a weaker person, it is being the substitute consequence for a little person who has not developed the cognitive skills to understand that his actions will have consequences for him, possibly consequences which could hurt him.It is not a way of communicating with a toddler, a toddler's communicative ability is not at the stage where he can understand hypothetical situations like a car hitting him, but he will remember that he got a sore bottom every time he made a dash for the road.Basically, it's a way of protecting a toddler from his own actions, which , if he is left to accomplish, could result in grave injury.I'd love to hear your ideas, Planck - seeing as I apparently to you, have no imagination.

 

[Planck]

It is not 'attacking' a weaker person, it is being the substitute consequence for a little person who has not developed the cognitive skills to understand that his actions will have consequences for him, possibly consequences which could hurt him.It is not a way of communicating with a toddler, a toddler's communicative ability is not at the stage where he can understand hypothetical situations like a car hitting him, but he will remember that he got a sore bottom every time he made a dash for the road.Basically, it's a way of protecting a toddler from his own actions, which , if he is left to accomplish, could result in grave injury.I'd love to hear your ideas, Planck - seeing as I apparently to you, have no imagination.

"Substitute consequence". What absolute bullshit. Pick the child up and stare at them, I don't entirely know, but don't invade the sphere of sovereign of another living being because you're unable to manage your child. It's utterly morally reprehensible. "He won't understand this but I CAN ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE THAT X Y Z". Then why do you have to hit the child more than once? Sorry, it's bullshit and I'm not buying any of it. Generating a pavlovian response to pain is utterly inhuman.

 

[*TRUE*]

"Substitute consequence". What absolute bullshit. Pick the child up and stare at them, I don't entirely know, but don't invade the sphere of sovereign of another living being because you're unable to manage your child. It's utterly morally reprehensible. "He won't understand this but I CAN ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE THAT X Y Z". Then why do you have to hit the child more than once? Sorry, it's bullshit and I'm not buying any of it. Generating a pavlovian response to pain is utterly inhuman.

You repeat the smack if neccessary so that they realise the smack is associated with the dangerous behaviour. Any other punishment that I can think of is too vague in its disconnection from the misdemenour and involves too long a time delay for them to associate it with the behaviour.To stare at angrily or speak angrily does nothing but convey a parents anger at the child, which can also be miscontrued. A child is likely to think the parent is displeased with them, but not at the particular behaviour.

 

[Planck]

You repeat the smack if neccessary so that they realise the smack is associated with the dangerous behaviour. Any other punishment that I can think of is too vague in its disconnection from the misdemenour and involves too long a time delay for them to associate it with the behaviour.To stare at angrily or speak angrily does nothing but convey a parents anger at the child, which can also be miscontrued. A child is likely to think the parent is displeased with them, but not at the particular behaviour.

My arguments have been made entirely from a philosophical standpoint. Your arguments have been made from thin fucking air.

Prove it. Prove that it works at all.

 

[*TRUE*]

My arguments have been made entirely from a philosophical standpoint. Your arguments have been made from thin fucking air.

Prove it. Prove that it works at all.

I could say that your philosophical arguments are in essence from thin...air.I have years (Four years experience, I was 15 - 19) of practical experience in minding young children (two months to 12 years).I have had many discussions with a favourite Uncle and Aunt, (a neurosurgeon and a pediatrician) about the progression of a childs cognitive ability which I feel support my opinion.I see from your arguments that you are not a fan of the anecdote, so i will not frustrate you with any one of the many that I could share, but they obviously factor in to my views.Admittedly, I am two years out of practise, busy with work/study so only occasionally looking after children, however I still hold to my views -seeing as I do the results of more 'modern' parenting techniques.
EDIT: can I just say that having a philosophical viewpoint does not make it more valid, perhaps less valid, as you have not yet tried it and found it to be practicable.

 

[John McCain]

It's never acceptable. It's coercive violence used to program an individual. It's attacking someone weaker than you because they haven't conformed to your view of the situation. Absolutely unconscionable in any circumstances. If it's considered to be the only way of communicating with a child then you're a terrible parent, or have a very limited imagination.

But as a parent it is a responsibility to program your child, at least to an extent. Children are required to surrender rights to autonomy to parents in a number of ways for their own safety, the freedom from forcible programming is arguably one of these.

I don't believe you ever need to use physical violence to do so, but is it really any better to use psychological methods of punishment? How can physical violence be unconscionable, but psychological and emotional manipulation acceptable?

If the methods are equal, you might as well use physical punishment. It is easy.

You put up freedom from coercive violence as an absolute good. Locking someone in their bedroom, forcibly removing them from a dangerous situation they wish to remain in is violent coercion. Is allowing my children the right to choose to take life threatening risks, which they only take based on their lack of perception about the consequences as they lack the capacity for rational decision making, better than violating their freedom from coercion?

What alternative is there, could you raise a child without ever punishing them?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It's never acceptable. It's coercive violence used to program an individual. It's attacking someone weaker than you because they haven't conformed to your view of the situation. Absolutely unconscionable in any circumstances. If it's considered to be the only way of communicating with a child then you're a terrible parent, or have a very limited imagination.

Although I think hitting children is bad and counterproductive, I must admit it can be justified as consistent with the non-aggression axiom. Children are dependent on their parents for support. If they choose to leave home and support themselves, the parents would not be justified in forcing them to return home. However, if children wish to continue living in their parents home, their parents may impose certain conditions of them which may include being hit.

 

[Planck]

I could say that your philosophical arguments are in essence from thin...air.I have years (Four years experience, I was 15 - 19) of practical experience in minding young children (two months to 12 years).I have had many discussions with a favourite Uncle and Aunt, (a neurosurgeon and a pediatrician) about the progression of a childs cognitive ability which I feel support my opinion.I see from your arguments that you are not a fan of the anecdote, so i will not frustrate you with any one of the many that I could share, but they obviously factor in to my views.Admittedly, I am two years out of practise, busy with work/study so only occasionally looking after children, however I still hold to my views -seeing as I do the results of more 'modern' parenting techniques.
EDIT: can I just say that having a philosophical viewpoint does not make it more valid, perhaps less valid, as you have not yet tried it and found it to be practicable.

I'd much rather be philosophically consistent than 'through anecdote' put myself slightly morally above a child-rapist.

 

[John McCain]

Although I think hitting children is bad and counterproductive, I must admit it can be justified as consistent with the non-aggression axiom. Children are dependent on their parents for support. If they choose to leave home and support themselves, the parents would not be justified in forcing them to return home. However, if children wish to continue living in their parents home, their parents may impose certain conditions of them which may include being hit.

It seems absurd to say it's better for a 4 year old to be allowed to run away from home than for their parents to force them to return home. Can I pull my child away from playing on the edge of a cliff, or is that an unreasonable violation of their autonomy? Compromising on their autonomy has the best outcomes.

In their inability to make rational decisions and foresee consequences, children lack the full qualities of personhood. In lacking the qualities of an adult human, they may also not be entitled to the rights of an adult human.

 

[*TRUE*]

It seems absurd to say it's better for a 4 year old to be allowed to run away from home than for their parents to force them to return home. Can I pull my child away from playing on the edge of a cliff, or is that an unreasonable violation of their autonomy? Compromising on their autonomy has the best outcomes.

In their inability to make rational decisions and foresee consequences, children lack the full qualities of personhood. In lacking the qualities of an adult human, they may also not be entitled to the rights of an adult human.

Thankyou, John Mc Cain, good to see an intelligent person is on the block.Planck...words almost fail me. Through anecdote? Try neuroscience, biology, my own study of psychology, and personal observation, experimentation and reflection over four years.What have you? I can but assume you are acting as a troll, this post is not of the same calibre of so many others you have submitted. Of course a childs autonomy is not as complete as an adult. They don't have the capacity to handle being handed their freedom on a plate. It must be given to them responsibly, gradually according to their maturity.

 

[rawrgasmic]

Yes, parents need to teach them the difference between acceptable and unacceptable and at a young age talking to them often wont do any good. Smacks send a clear message of 'No' and cause no lasting damage to the child mentally or physically provided the parent isn't a basherfag and doesn't abuse their right to punish their child beyond a reasonable level. If you are unaware to what a reasonable level is, plox drown yourself to remove your genes from the pool.

contradiction much? if you smack the child it'll think that it's acceptable to hit others seeing as how your doing it to them

 

[Venetiad]

I think that smacking should be at the discretion of the parent. I myself was smacked as a young child and I believe that it instilled good behaviour in me. Smacking certainly isn't a last resort. Theres the spoon, which I've taken before. And the belt, which I've taken once only. While children do learn incredible amounts of values from their parents etc, it is certainly easy to pick up counter-productive values in the real world. To dissuade a child from such a value will require different actions for each child, depending on how much of a 'free spirit' they are. It's in this regard that I find it absurd that others should judge how much is too far, until we pass a threshold that can be deemed as 'unsafe' for whatever the reason. Remember that is the parent which sees the child most and is likely to understand the child most, certainly not someone outside the situation.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It seems absurd to say it's better for a 4 year old to be allowed to run away from home than for their parents to force them to return home. Can I pull my child away from playing on the edge of a cliff, or is that an unreasonable violation of their autonomy? Compromising on their autonomy has the best outcomes.

In their inability to make rational decisions and foresee consequences, children lack the full qualities of personhood. In lacking the qualities of an adult human, they may also not be entitled to the rights of an adult human.

Well I seriously doubt whether a 4 year old would be able to make a genuine attempt at running away from home. But if they were that determined to leave home at such a young age, it would indicate something seriously wrong with the parents, and it would probably be very dangerous to force them to go back to the control of such parents.

If a child chooses to leave home and support themselves, or to find other parents or guardians who are willing to support them, their age should not be used as a reason to force them to live with their parents.

There is no reason to assume that parents are competent and know what is best for their child, or that they are better guardians of the child the someone who is not the child's biological parents.

 

[Venetiad]

contradiction much? if you smack the child it'll think that it's acceptable to hit others seeing as how your doing it to them

That doesn't really apply unless the kid's got anger issues. Why? Because by the time the child is interacting with other children they should understand what is acceptable and what isn't. If not, then the parent hasn't been taking full responsibility of the child's upbringing. Also, the "younger years", ie. Kindy and Preschool have good levels of supervision. So I wouldn't go about that road.

 

[scarybunny]

I'd agree that smacking a child because it's been naughty is not beneficial, because the kid will just end up thinking that you can make people do what you say by hitting them.

But if they've done something potentially dangerous, I can see that smacking may be effective as a means of preventing the child from doing it again.

I don't know if the end justifies the means, though. If another method of punishment would be equally effective, then by all means use that. The safety of a child is what is most important, and if smacking is the most effective way to prevent them from running onto the road or touching a stove, then I'd agree with its use.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I think that smacking should be at the discretion of the parent. I myself was smacked as a young child and I believe that it instilled good behaviour in me. Smacking certainly isn't a last resort. Theres the spoon, which I've taken before. And the belt, which I've taken once only. While children do learn incredible amounts of values from their parents etc, it is certainly easy to pick up counter-productive values in the real world. To dissuade a child from such a value will require different actions for each child, depending on how much of a 'free spirit' they are. It's in this regard that I find it absurd that others should judge how much is too far, until we pass a threshold that can be deemed as 'unsafe' for whatever the reason. Remember that is the parent which sees the child most and is likely to understand the child most, certainly not someone outside the situation.

You're assuming good parents, who are teaching their children good values.

People don't need to have "good" values beaten into them. Its questionable whether this teaches children anything. All they learn is that bad behavior will result in a smack. Without further explanation of why the behavior is bad, they have learned nothing. As soon as the threat of the smack if removed (which it must be eventually) they no longer have any incentive to behave in the "good" way.

Children are not dogs that can be trained to behave automatically in a certain way through simple rewards and punishment. Unless you take the time to talk to your children about values, and what is right and wrong they will not learn anything. Smacking is really just a cop out, a pathetic short cut.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

The safety of a child is what is most important, and if smacking is the most effective way to prevent them from running onto the road or touching a stove, then I'd agree with its use.

Nonsense.

If you're close enough to the child to administer a smack, you're close enough to grab them and physically restrain them from running onto the road.

Hitting them will teach them nothing. You need to explain to the child that the road is dangerous and they could be hit by a car and injured or killed.