Feed on Posts or Comments 31 July 2014

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 12 Apr 2010 12:47 am

A follow-up on Spanking

A follow-up on this post on Spanking:

Christians: why is there so much child abuse in your religion?

This article in Time Magazine states that spanking creates problems rather than solutions:

Study: Spanking Kids Leads to More Aggressive Behavior

Compared with children who were not hit, those who were spanked were more likely to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, get frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against others.

The reason for that, says Singer, may be that spanking instills fear rather than understanding. Even if a child were to stop his screaming tantrum when spanked, that doesn’t mean he understands why he shouldn’t be acting up in the first place. What’s more, spanking models aggressive behavior as a solution to problems.

18 Responses to “A follow-up on Spanking”

  1. on 13 Apr 2010 at 1:48 pm 1.Xenon said …

    debunked—–again.

    “In countries in which physical discipline was more common and culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.”

    No questions on how the discipline was given. Was it given lovingly or in anger? Was it give with an explanation of expected behavior or in a drunken stupor? The study is just silly and unreliable.

  2. on 13 Apr 2010 at 3:01 pm 2.MrQ said …

    Xenon,

    Might help your claim if you cite a source or two. Kind of helps validate things rather than making it appear that you are pulling stuff out of thin air.

  3. on 13 Apr 2010 at 4:50 pm 3.Fling said …

    >No questions on how the discipline was given.
    >Was it given lovingly or in anger?

    Ridiculous. Ask it this way and you see why:

    Was his wife beaten lovingly or in anger?

  4. on 13 Apr 2010 at 5:07 pm 4.Delphine said …

    That’s not a reason for not spanking your kids. That’s a reason for fully explaining the situation to the kids so they understand what they did wrong, and what the consequences will be. The consequences should be consistent, and if you decide spanking is the consequence, so be it. They’re your kids.

    The analogy with spanking wives is a stretched analogy at best. You don’t teach another adult right from wrong. You teach your own children right from wrong. A child who does not learn bad actions bring upon severe consequences or a child who knows all that’s going to happen to them is they’ll be grounded with their PS3 and computer in their room, is a child who will have no discipline and no fear of his parents. There is no incentive for him to do good as the consequences are inconsequential.

    Countries that do use corporal punishments, but use them in a responsible way where the punishment is consistent and the children understand why they’re being punished, have much better behaved kids than the kids from countries that advocate against spanking children.

    It’s not a coincidence children in Asia behave better and study harder than children in America.

    Whether a person spanks his or her children or not, has nothing to do with their religious affiliation.

    I’m an atheist, and I fully support responsible parenting, and spanking children is a part of being a responsible parent.

  5. on 13 Apr 2010 at 6:31 pm 5.Lou said …

    Spanking has been used for centuries and has a record of producing upstanding adults. I would argue children raised in the past in contrast as a group are more respectful, hard working and morally superior than those we see coming up today.

    To suddenly make these bogus claims about the methodology is to ignore the centuries of positive results. Its nothing more than a study with preconceived results.

  6. on 13 Apr 2010 at 7:09 pm 6.MrQ said …

    Lou,

    You are too narrow and focused in your view.
    Stating “I would argue children raised in the past in contrast as a group are more respectful, hard working and morally superior than those we see coming up today.” does not NECESSARILY mean that the spanking played any part.
    It is akin to saying that global warming is due to a lack of pirates because we didn’t have global warming when pirates ruled the seas. Since pirate numbers have diminished, global warming has increased.
    With both scenarios, is it a correlation or a coincidence?
    Could other variables be at play?

  7. on 14 Apr 2010 at 12:25 pm 7.Lou said …

    “does not NECESSARILY mean that the spanking played any part.”

    Uh huh and implying spanked children are more aggressive does not NECESSARILY mean spanking played a part in the aggression either Q. Environment and heredity tend to much larger indicators.

  8. on 21 Apr 2010 at 1:05 am 8.Meg said …

    MrQ,
    Before bringing up global warming, you should probably do some research on it. It’s not true! Temperatures have been at record highs this year. And did you not hear the news about the scam where the global warming scientists were manipulating data in their favor?
    I am definitely a proponent of spanking. My parents spanked me and I don’t have an aggression problem. I think it goes back to the Bible verse, Proverbs 13:24- “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.” Yeah, there is a fine line. You shouldn’t abuse them, but spanking them and explaining to them the reasoning behind it is definitely the best method of discipline for children.

  9. on 21 Apr 2010 at 2:34 am 9.A real-ist said …

    “Before bringing up global warming, you should probably do some research on it. It’s not true! Temperatures have been at record highs this year.”

    Um, isn’t temperatures being at record highs part of the definition of global warming? And besides, it isn’t known as global warming anymore, it is Global Climate Change. And the melting of the polar ice caps at an enormous rate isn’t proof? Have you seen the difference in satelite pictures over the last decade or so? It should take 100′s of years to accomplish that. I think when Florida is half full of water in 20 years that will be proof enough. And the scientists that were thought to have lied about data in emails, that has proven to be exagerated because really they were just sloppy in some of the data, not dishonest.

  10. on 21 Apr 2010 at 3:02 am 10.Horatio said …

    Global warming is only a natural cycle. In 1980 they claimed we were headed for the next ice age. In the 1920s they claimed global warming!

    Don’t let the fearmongers fool you. This is about money and control. In my part of the nation it was the coldest winter in 25 years.

  11. on 21 Apr 2010 at 3:44 am 11.A real-ist said …

    “In my part of the nation it was the coldest winter in 25 years.”

    Yeah, that is why it is called Global Climate Change, which means extremeties in all conditions.

    “This is about money and control.”

    Wow, who is gaining control of something and who is making the money out of this? Besides, you ever hear of one of the main reasons for relgion? Control! And religious wars? Money and Control!

    “Global warming is only a natural cycle.”

    Yeah, something that takes 100′s to 1000′s of years to fluctuate, not a few decades!

    “In 1980 they claimed we were headed for the next ice age. In the 1920s they claimed global warming!”

    Really? Where’s the claim on that? Must not have been talked about too much then and therefore not a big phenomenon at that time if your claim is true.

  12. on 21 Apr 2010 at 12:00 pm 12.Horatio said …

    So it is global cycle change now, huh? So if it snows or if we are in drought it is all Global Cycle Change and of course man-made! That Obama Kool Aid has soaked in well!

    Check out Newsweek from 1980. Just because Al is loud and the media covers him doesn’t make the scam less real.

    Study the data since scientist have been keeping it. We have always been in a global cycle change.

    You don’t think this is about money and control? ONG! Are you familiar with the Title V laws and are you familiar with what “Cap & Tax” proposes? Get your partisan head out of your butt and let the fraud permeate your sense of reality.

  13. on 22 Apr 2010 at 1:33 am 13.A real-ist said …

    “So it is global cycle change now, huh? So if it snows or if we are in drought it is all Global Cycle Change and of course man-made!”

    It is global climate change, not cycle change. And you are ignorant if you think just because it is hot or cold we are claiming it is man made. It is the “extremeties” I am talking about. And it is other things besides just hot or cold. For example, the massive amount of hurricanes occuring because of the warming up of the oceans too fast. The polar ice caps are melting at a rate way faster than ever and way faster than it should. Not every part of the world is going to be effected by global climate change, so that is why there is skeptics right now. You and others walk outside and say hey, we’ve had hot days before or it has snowed before. It is the extreme conditions I am talking about. And some of the conditions aren’t even as noticable as you would think, for example, the amount of radition from the sun. So things aren’t just black and white like you are claiming. Another example off the top of my head is when I was in Vegas at the end of February. It was raining there and the locals said they have never had that much rain in a 3 week period that they can ever recall.

    How many cars do you think are running every second in the world with exhaust coming out of their tale pipes? That amount of constant polution can easily do damage to the earth’s natural state. And remember, cars have only been around for a short period of time in earth’s existance, with the last 50 years the numbers have greatly expanded. So it isn’t hard to imagine that with all the polution we have been doing to the earth in very recent history with little or none to that extreme ever before, that we could cause problems in the earth’s climate that isn’t normal.

  14. on 22 Apr 2010 at 2:54 am 14.Horatio said …

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

    The Cooling World

    Newsweek, April 28, 1975

    There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

    The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

    To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

    A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

    To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

    Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

    Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

    “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

  15. on 22 Apr 2010 at 3:09 am 15.A real-ist said …

    Your article only shows what they thought back in 1975. Keep in mind, science has advanced a lot since then and polution has advanced a lot since then. Remember those scientists a long long time ago that thought the world was flat? More advanced science came after that and proved it is round. So back to 1975, the scientists at that time were going based on what was happening at that time and the technology that that had at that time. The situation to present day has drastically changed since then. By using present day technology, I am sure present scientists are wondering why they thought the cooling period was happening at a fast rate, when now we look at today and compare it to back then, that was a slow rate to what is actually happening now with the climate change. Keep in mind, our advancements in technology has changed since then at a rate never seen before.

  16. on 22 Apr 2010 at 11:31 am 16.Horatio said …

    You just don’t get it.

    You were not alive back then were you? It is obvious. Our factories mere much filthier, our cars admitted 10 times more pollutants and we as Americans had practices which admitted many more pollutants. The Networks were constantly putting out sitcom episodes about cleaning up the environment. We have in a large way. But yet, the ice age was coming.

    You are an ideologue. Even in the eye of climategate you believe the verdict is in even though climate scientist disagree. Not possible it is just a natural cycle? Drive your moped and drink the kool aid that the sky is falling.

    Oh, and every generation believes their science is new and modern. We still get the daily weather report wrong on a regular basis.

  17. on 22 Apr 2010 at 11:59 am 17.A real-ist said …

    Since today is Earth Day, I will give you a few sites to check out:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/

  18. on 22 Apr 2010 at 1:15 pm 18.Burebista said …

    Read A-realist statements closely. The subtle change in the language since Clmategate reveals his obvious brainwashing by the DNC.

    Climate change is not the issue. The issue is if it is imparted by manmade activity. A-Realist is not really following the science for if he was, he would realize hundreds of climatologist are in great disagreement. Ideologue is perhaps the most precise descriptor. He follows the science as it is filtered through the DNC and Al Gore, producer of the “Incontinent Lie”.

    But not let us forget FOIGate, ChinaGate, HimalayaGate, SternGate and the most flawed AlaskaGate. Many of the published findings are NOT peer-reviewed! There are many more but these are the ones that come to mind. It run is cavernous and by following the cash you can uncover the culprits.

    Antarctica is actually growing, not shrinking. I guess the cycle there is cooling.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply