Author Topic: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths  (Read 8355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2011, 09:22:13 AM »
Gnu, I personally don't spank at all. I also would not advise it. However, I can't say that it is wrong to spank in every single situation because I do not think morality is objective. I would not condemn Jay for spanking his daughter once. I disagree with spanking, but if parents are going to spank regardless of my opinion, I would hope it would be gentle and rare.

With my parents, it was used primarily for embarrasment/humiliation, and only before verbal expressions of shame could be used. It wasn't actually violence.

I've only seen my father use violence once, on my brother when he was 17, and told my Mom to "fuck off" after she caught him with pot. The Violence was pretty extreme, not hospital extreme, but concussion extreme.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2011, 09:46:49 AM »
Sorry to hear that, Hatter. I think you should have been treated better.

However, I think your examples illustrate my point that violence/abuse is defined subjectively. Some people consider spanking violence, and some don't.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2011, 10:20:32 AM »
...I think your examples illustrate my point that violence/abuse is defined subjectively. Some people consider spanking violence, and some don't.

The problem with defining it subjectively is that it's also subjective to the child. What a parent might believe to be non-violent the child might find to be terrifying and damaging to their emotional health and well-being. As someone who was a very sensitive child, I believe that we must always err on the side of non-violence.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2011, 10:23:18 AM »
Sorry to hear that, Hatter. I think you should have been treated better.

However, I think your examples illustrate my point that violence/abuse is defined subjectively. Some people consider spanking violence, and some don't.

No, I think it was applied correctly. It was used as an embarrassment rather than corporal.



 The Violence, was once...and only once...with a marine for a father and three boys, I think its pretty forgivable.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2011, 10:24:33 AM »
I think everyone here might agree that there's no excuse for any adult, parent or not, disciplining a child in anger.  I think the problems with corporal discipline come from it being used by angry parents as a shortcut, because I'll bet that most parents who use it are angry when they do so.  But I don't think that justifies saying that corporal discipline is something that should never be allowed under any circumstances no matter what.

This is a little hard to explain.  But, basically, it is about the fact that the real world is not gentle about punishing misdeeds.  I do not think it is a bad thing for a child to be aware that they cannot expect everyone to be patient and understanding when they screw up.  That does not mean that I think it is a good idea to have the home be a microcosm of the real world.  The problem is that people, whether children or adults, do not consider something real unless they've actually experienced it on the ground, so to speak.  That includes bad consequences; someone who only receives positive reinforcement when they're growing up will expect it in the real world, and they won't necessarily get it.  If things go seriously enough wrong, they certainly won't.  And people won't know how to react to those bad things if they have no experience dealing with them.

It is not that I recommend giving out bad consequences to children, cause I don't.  It's that I don't really see how it can be avoided completely, not if we want to make sure our children know how to deal with adversity.  Hmm, I think what I'm saying is that they have to know that it's real, but that doesn't mean hurting them to do so.  That's why I think very limited and restrained forms of corporal discipline can be useful.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12238
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2011, 10:51:57 AM »
^^ So in the real world, when we screw up, we can expect justified physical punishment?  Do you mean that in terms of crime, or in general?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2011, 11:28:37 AM »
Azdgari:  If you really think I was talking about crime punishment, then you didn't read the same post I wrote.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12238
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2011, 12:11:44 PM »
I don't think that's what you meant; I brought it up for that very reason.  But I am asking you what you did mean.  Roughly speaking, you characterized corporal punishment as a way to prepare children for the unfairness of the real world.  Am I with you so far?

If so, then does it make sense for physical punishment to be an appropriate avenue of preparation, if physical punishment is not the thing the child is being prepared for?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2011, 12:53:59 PM »
Alright.  Sorry if I seem cranky, I don't like the time change (I've been waking up an hour early since the time flipped, which is annoying), and this is not an easy subject for me to discuss even at the best of times[1].

I'll explain later.
 1. Adults abusing children by beating them is not that different from children abusing other children by bullying them.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2011, 01:06:50 PM »
...I think your examples illustrate my point that violence/abuse is defined subjectively. Some people consider spanking violence, and some don't.

The problem with defining it subjectively is that it's also subjective to the child. What a parent might believe to be non-violent the child might find to be terrifying and damaging to their emotional health and well-being. As someone who was a very sensitive child, I believe that we must always err on the side of non-violence.

I don't like that morality is subjective, but that is the nature of humanity. I don't like when other people think spanking a kid is fine, but to them it is not abuse or violence. I don't like spanking (and I don't spank at all), but I cannot say that it is objectively wrong because what is the standard by which we would judge objectivity? God? I don't believe in God. Objective morality does not exist. People are always going to find something to disagree about, hence subjectivity.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2011, 01:08:18 PM »
This is a little hard to explain.  But, basically, it is about the fact that the real world is not gentle about punishing misdeeds.  I do not think it is a bad thing for a child to be aware that they cannot expect everyone to be patient and understanding when they screw up.
.
.
.
It is not that I recommend giving out bad consequences to children, cause I don't.  It's that I don't really see how it can be avoided completely, not if we want to make sure our children know how to deal with adversity.  Hmm, I think what I'm saying is that they have to know that it's real, but that doesn't mean hurting them to do so.  That's why I think very limited and restrained forms of corporal discipline can be useful.

I have my own little theory about punishment in our culture.  I suspect it has more to do with teaching "justice" than teaching skills.  By that I mean, as your comments reflect, parents tend to get anxious that their kids won't recognize there is an expectation of justice in society and if they don't fulfill their obligations, they will be in for a rude awakening.  I submit this is in no small part to the Christian religion that advocates a kind of "divine" or "ultimate" justice.  I also submit this is a euphemism for revenge.  I think when parents physically (or emotionally) punish a child, what they are really doing is avenging the breach of justice in hopes that the child won't grow up to face worse vengeance.  They will, it is hoped, be prepared.

A child can learn appropriate skills without being punished for inappropriate ones.  A child can learn empathy and compassion and strengthen their executive functioning skills to incorporate these virtues when applying a solution to whatever problem they have.  Spanking is for the parent, I think, in every case.  It isn't necessary and can be quite detrimental to the healthy development of a person.   

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2011, 01:13:26 PM »
what is the standard by which we would judge objectivity? God? I don't believe in God. Objective morality does not exist. People are always going to find something to disagree about, hence subjectivity.


One thing that was drilled into me as a parent of a child with an autistic spectrum disorder with behavior tutors in the home and at school 30 hours/week is every behavior serves a function.  No behavior is random.  None.  We may not recognize the function (reason) for the behavior and the child might not either, but there always is one.  Find the function and teach the appropriate, alternative skill.

Teaching and rewarding are more effective and don't result in physical pain.  That right there, physical pain, goes against the child's well-being.  It's understood to be the lesser of two evils by conventional wisdom, but as we learn more about human behavior, we know this isn't the case.  We know this from objectively obtained information.  We know this from experiments and trials and research.  There is an objective way to gain information and logic helps us connect the dots.  God need not be invoked at all. 

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2011, 04:23:14 PM »
CuriousGirl:
Quote
You are absolutely right. You know, Gnu, I think we agree with one another for the most part. Maybe it is just that you see spanking as objectively wrong, and I see it as subjectively wrong? <snip> My point with this is that the morality of spanking is subjective because it is not universally felt that it is wrong.
CG, we do basically agree, but maybe you should start on a new thread on this point, because you're the only one talking about objective morality? And, you appear to be misunderstanding the concept of Universal MoralityWiki - UM is a morality which is intended to apply to everyone, not a morality with which everyone agrees. As wiki says:
Quote
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature.
Note that, rather confusingly, Moral Universalism is also known as Moral Objectivism. What you (and most others) call Objective Morality (the idea that morals are independent of subjective opinion) is actually known as Moral RealismWiki.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so-called not because everyone agrees with it (they don't), but because the rights specified within it apply universally.

So, to go back to what I'm saying; first I declare a personal ethic, that it would be wrong for me to spank my children. Second, I can (and do) declare that I think that this is a universal ethic i.e. that it applies to all children; so I express that thought as I did in post 22: Any deliberate infliction of physical pain on a child constitutes abuse.

That isn't a claim to moral objectivity; it's still only my personal judgment, and I obviously don't have the authority to enforce it. I can of course pass judgment on others if I want to (as can we all), as I'm doing on this thread.

I hope that's clarified things.  :)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 05:19:57 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2011, 05:15:22 PM »
What you did was wrong. Would you like to have a nice talk about it?  :)

Were you just being rhetorical or did you actually want to talk to me about how I am wrong?

Edit:  For spelling
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2011, 06:11:38 PM »
Quote
Were you just being rhetorical or did you actually want to talk to me about how I am wrong?
It was a sincere invitation, JayB.

As I've already made 8 posts on this thread, it should be clear where I stand on this issue. I think corporal punishment is wrong.

Perhaps we should agree on the definition of CP? I'm happy with the wiki description:

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings.

Are you OK with that, JayB, "the deliberate infliction of pain"?

(In my country, Britain, CP used to be employed in civil justice, in miltary justice and in schools. That's all illegal now. It's still legal in domestic settings, and I hope that changes).

There is plenty of evidence that using CP on children constitutes abuse i.e. that it's harmful in several ways:
Quote
Researcher Elizabeth Gershoff, Ph. D., in a 2002 meta-analytic study that combined 60 years of research on corporal punishment [of children], found that the only positive outcome of corporal punishment was immediate compliance.

Gershoff reviewed 11 variables associated with Corporal Punishment (CP), including:

Immediate Compliance - She found that CP is associated with increased immediate compliance.

Moral Internalization - She found that CP decreases internalization of moral rules. This is concerning in that parents are more likely to use corporal punishment when they believe the child is at fault for some misbehavior. Thus, using a method that decreases moral internalization to respond to a failure to adhere to internal rules the child should have known is likely to perpetuate the problem.

Aggression - She found that CP is associated with increased aggression. This is especially troublesome, she notes, in that parents are more likely to use aggression to stop aggression. However, one study showed that use of corporal punishment to halt aggression increased risk for aggressive behaviors by 50%, regardless of whether the parent or the teacher rated the child's behavior. Use of aggression after being physically punished for aggressive behavior is likely to be seen as an escalation of misbehavior, which was also associated with greater use of corporal punishment. Thus, corporal punishment is likely to perpetuate the problem.

Antisocial Behaviors - She found that CP is associated with increased antisocial behaviors. This was found most strongly for boys, and for children between the ages of 10 and 12. This is also troublesome as boys were more likely to be spanked, and if spanking increases antisocial behaviors, spanking to stop them is likely to perpetuate the problem. Gershoff in fact did find that CP is associated with increased risk of adult criminal behavior.

Quality of Parent-Child Relationship - She found that CP is associated with decreased quality of the parent-child relationship. This is more troublesome because most spankings happen between 5:00PM and bedtime, which comprises the majority of parent-child time together for most children. Spankings were also more likely to happen if the child's misbehavior placed them at some risk for harm, and protecting the child is part of the parent-child relationship. This is also more troublesome, as spanking can lead children to think that aggression is common in relationships with loved ones. Gershoff in fact did find that CP is associated with increased risk of victimization from abusive relationships in adulthood.

Mental Health - She found that CP is associated with decreased mental health outcomes. This is concerning, as children ages 5 to 8 are most at risk for severe corporal punishment, ages at which significant emotional, social, and cognitive development happens.

Adult Abusive Behavior - She found that CP is associated with increased adult abusive behavior. She reports studies have shown that 2/3s of abusive parent-child incidents begin as an effort to discipline the child and "teach them a lesson." If this means that adult antisocial behavior is more likely after being spanked as a child, given that other research shows antisocial parents are at greater risk to abuse children, then this could mean that spanking one's child may increase the risk of abuse for one's grandchildren.

So, over to you, JayB. If you agree that you used Corporal Punishment on your daughter, justify your behaviour. I say you were wrong, and you owe her an apology.


PS For some reason, I can't find the source of that quote above. It used to exist, but I'm getting a 404 Page Not Found message. I'll check it out. (Edit: I can't find that summary, but I found the original paper).
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 07:05:47 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2011, 06:25:07 PM »

Teaching and rewarding are more effective and don't result in physical pain.  That right there, physical pain, goes against the child's well-being. 

I agree, and I even stated this earlier.


It's understood to be the lesser of two evils by conventional wisdom, but as we learn more about human behavior, we know this isn't the case.  We know this from objectively obtained information.  We know this from experiments and trials and research.  There is an objective way to gain information and logic helps us connect the dots.  God need not be invoked at all.

Of course science and logic are as objective as we can get. Yet we are still subjective creatures. I certainly know what the research says. I even posted a link to an article earlier. I am simply saying that while I agree with you, I have already argued in other threads that morality is subjective, so I can say that spanking is wrong, but that does not mean that I am absolutely right. It means that I am right based on my own subjective version of morality, your version of morality, and Gnu's. Those who advocate spanking, however, would tell me that I am wrong. They truly feel that they are doing right by their child, even though I would disagree.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2011, 06:53:02 PM »
CuriousGirl:
Quote
You are absolutely right. You know, Gnu, I think we agree with one another for the most part. Maybe it is just that you see spanking as objectively wrong, and I see it as subjectively wrong? <snip> My point with this is that the morality of spanking is subjective because it is not universally felt that it is wrong.
CG, we do basically agree, but maybe you should start on a new thread on this point, because you're the only one talking about objective morality? And, you appear to be misunderstanding the concept of Universal MoralityWiki - UM is a morality which is intended to apply to everyone, not a morality with which everyone agrees. As wiki says:
Quote
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature.
Note that, rather confusingly, Moral Universalism is also known as Moral Objectivism. What you (and most others) call Objective Morality (the idea that morals are independent of subjective opinion) is actually known as Moral RealismWiki.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so-called not because everyone agrees with it (they don't), but because the rights specified within it apply universally.

So, to go back to what I'm saying; first I declare a personal ethic, that it would be wrong for me to spank my children. Second, I can (and do) declare that I think that this is a universal ethic i.e. that it applies to all children; so I express that thought as I did in post 22: Any deliberate infliction of physical pain on a child constitutes abuse.

That isn't a claim to moral objectivity; it's still only my personal judgment, and I obviously don't have the authority to enforce it. I can of course pass judgment on others if I want to (as can we all), as I'm doing on this thread.

I hope that's clarified things.  :)

Thank you for setting me straight on the morality defs.  :)
I wanted to stay in this thread as long as the spanking issue is involved, if you don't mind.

I personally agree with the line you drew, and I agree that it is only my personal judgment as well. I guess what I have been trying to communicate is that although I feel very strongly that a child should not be spanked, and I will even advise others to use different discipline methods that I mentioned earlier, I do not feel that I have the right to tell a parent not to spank their child. Spanking is viewed by many as a parental right here in the US, and I feel like who am I to tell them not to? I honestly feel that my suggestion would only be met with hostility if I told another parent not to spank their child. These parents think that it is right to spank their child, and CPS would back them.

So to fix my definition, I do not feel that I can say spanking is objectively wrong because it is not right or wrong independently of human opinion. After all, it is humans (subjective creatures) who define what is moral. As I have said in other threads, what humans consider "moral" changes with time and cultures.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2011, 06:53:51 PM »
Perhaps we should agree on the definition of CP? I'm happy with the wiki description:

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings.

Are you OK with that, JayB, "the deliberate infliction of pain"?

The deliberate infliction of pain, yes.

Quote
PS For some reason, I can't find the source of that quote above. It used to exist, but I'm getting a 404 Page Not Found message. I'll check it out.

Let me know when you find it, I will google her name and see what I can find. If we are going to use her study I would like to have a look at the whole thing. I would like to find another study to compare her findings with. Also, there was something relevant to this discussion in my psychology class; I would like to find that as well.

Quote
So, over to you, JayB. If you agree that you used Corporal Punishment on your daughter, justify your behaviour. I say you were wrong, and you owe her an apology.

I do agree that I have used Corporal Punishment on my daughters, I intend to justify my behavior but I will require a little time[1] to gather my resources and thoughts. You are entitled to your opinion. Of course I disagree. If you can convince me that Corporal Punishment is wrong regardless of how, why or when it is applied then I will indeed apologize to my daughters and explain to them how and why I was wrong and ask for their forgiveness.

Just for the record my oldest daughter is 8 years old. I haven't spanked her in about 2 years. I will likely never spank her again. My view is that once they are old enough to be reasoned with they are too old for spankings.


 1. A day maybe
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2011, 07:00:25 PM »
Alright.  What I was trying to say earlier is that children need to understand that the real world is not 'nice' regardless of how things are at home.  But I am at somewhat of a loss for how to make something bad 'real' so that a child understands that it's not just rhetoric, without some way to get the experience across in a way they can understand without having it be seen as punishment.  It's...confusing, even after I thought about it some.  And it doesn't exactly apply to corporal discipline except as a tangent.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2011, 07:17:46 PM »
Quote
Let me know when you find it, I will google her name and see what I can find.
I couldn't find that summary, JayB, but I found the original paper, which I admit I haven't read. Link above.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2011, 07:27:02 PM »
Jayb...here's my take.  Yu are smart enough to find ways to reason with your daughter, regardless of her age, are you not?  That doesn't mean she will respond in kind, but how does hitting change that?

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2011, 07:40:35 PM »
I am simply saying that while I agree with you, I have already argued in other threads that morality is subjective, so I can say that spanking is wrong, but that does not mean that I am absolutely right. It means that I am right based on my own subjective version of morality, your version of morality, and Gnu's. Those who advocate spanking, however, would tell me that I am wrong. They truly feel that they are doing right by their child, even though I would disagree.

I gotcha.  I just don't think an objective morality is necessary.  We know enough about the sensation of a slap or implement on a part of the body to know it causes pain.  We know enough about human behavior to identify and teach alternative behaviors in such a way that doesn't cause physical pain.   Because we can teach these skills without pain, it would be unjustified to use pain as a method for teaching.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2011, 07:50:52 PM »
Alright.  What I was trying to say earlier is that children need to understand that the real world is not 'nice' regardless of how things are at home.  But I am at somewhat of a loss for how to make something bad 'real' so that a child understands that it's not just rhetoric, without some way to get the experience across in a way they can understand without having it be seen as punishment.  It's...confusing, even after I thought about it some.  And it doesn't exactly apply to corporal discipline except as a tangent.

Kids are natural scientists, right?  They employ cause and effect to each experiment/experience to discover what variables are at play and what effect they have.  No one has to teach a toddler how to walk, they figure it out by trial and error.  It's how they figure everything out.   Any problem requiring a solution works this way and as children grow and mature they recognize their world is bigger than their home or neighborhood or even town or city.  They see and learn from the trial and error of others (pretty handy behavior we primates have evolved with).  A child who learns good interpersonal skills (ie, theory of mind, empathy compassion, etc) and good executive functioning skills (how to identify and effectively solve a problem) will have the skills needed to be self-sufficient adults, contributing positively to their community.  Some of our kids don't have these skills in adequate measure and this is, imo, what inspires parents to punish when instead they need to spend more time on certain skills.  The idea that all kids ought to develop these skills at the same time causes worry for parents, kids develop individually and may simply need more time than their peers or even siblings to master any particular skill. 

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2011, 07:54:57 PM »
Albeto, great points.  And let's not forget that humans have a tendency to be selfish.  I believe it is one reason behind poor parenting.  Basically, it is impatience, based on selfishness.  The parent is burdened with the child, and the child is now imposing on the parent's freedom.  I know I felt it as a young parent, but having another child in my later years, I am far more patient, and far more willing to help the child.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2011, 07:59:47 PM »

I gotcha.  I just don't think an objective morality is necessary.  We know enough about the sensation of a slap or implement on a part of the body to know it causes pain.  We know enough about human behavior to identify and teach alternative behaviors in such a way that doesn't cause physical pain.   Because we can teach these skills without pain, it would be unjustified to use pain as a method for teaching.


Albeto, I'm with you, but unfortunately, there are so many people that we would not be able to convince. I'm not sure if it is because they are illogical and angry, or what, but they claim that spanking is OK and the US seems to support them legally (which is also frustrating to me). I would like to tell them that spanking is wrong to me for reasons x, y and z; but then they will come back at me with their own reasons for why spanking is good, and why they are good parents for spanking. I am hoping that spanking will fade away over the next century, just as I hope religion will fade. Until that does happen, it is incredibly difficult (almost futile, in some cases) for me to talk some parents out of spanking (especially if they think God wants them to).
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2011, 08:09:42 PM »
CG:
Quote
I personally agree with the line you drew, and I agree that it is only my personal judgment as well. I guess what I have been trying to communicate is that although I feel very strongly that a child should not be spanked, and I will even advise others to use different discipline methods that I mentioned earlier, I do not feel that I have the right to tell a parent not to spank their child.
1. No-one's suggesting that you should issue any orders. But you can engage, discuss and present evidence... 

2. If you lived in a country where spanking was illegal, then your position in the discussion would be considerably strengthened. 

3. Being a little pedantic, but you Americans have a constitutional right to free speech, which certainly includes the right to issue orders to anyone you like. Whether your orders carry any authority is another matter.  :)

Quote
Thank you for setting me straight on the morality defs.  :) 
No worries. Happy to help. 
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 09:10:36 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2011, 08:18:42 PM »
1. No-one's suggesting that you should issue any orders. But you can engage, discuss and present evidence... 

For sure. BTW, I think the link to that news article I posted earlier in the thread was about the same psychologist and research that you mentioned to Jay. It is not the research itself, but I hope it is useful.


2. If you lived in a country where spanking was illegal, then your position in the discussion would be considerably strengthened. 

Agreed.

3. Being a little pedantic, but you Americans have a constitutional right to free speech, which certainly includes the right to issue orders to anyone. Whether your orders carry any authority is another matter.  :)

LOL, yeah but sometimes we Americans take that right a little too far, whether or not we have authority.  ;D

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #56 on: November 09, 2011, 08:20:52 PM »
Albeto, I'm with you, but unfortunately, there are so many people that we would not be able to convince. I'm not sure if it is because they are illogical and angry, or what, but they claim that spanking is OK and the US seems to support them legally (which is also frustrating to me). I would like to tell them that spanking is wrong to me for reasons x, y and z; but then they will come back at me with their own reasons for why spanking is good, and why they are good parents for spanking. I am hoping that spanking will fade away over the next century, just as I hope religion will fade. Until that does happen, it is incredibly difficult (almost futile, in some cases) for me to talk some parents out of spanking (especially if they think God wants them to).

Yeah, some people simply won't/can't listen to alternative reasons.  I think it's a matter of information simply doesn't click.  After all, they were spanked as a child and turned out "just fine" right?  I think the trick is to recognize the same goals can be achieved without invoking physical (or emotional) pain.   It's tricky because spanking is quick, effective in the short term, and offers a feeling of satisfaction for the frustrated parent.  It takes more work to work with a child than to apply negative consequences.   But spanking is not necessary to teach valuable skills and because of that, it does cause unjustified pain. 

But yeah, godly discipline is a delusion and that's impossible to talk about logically. 

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2011, 09:04:43 PM »
CG:
Quote
BTW, I think the link to that news article I posted earlier in the thread was about the same psychologist and research that you mentioned to Jay. It is not the research itself, but I hope it is useful.
Ah right, sorry, I never clicked on that link, for some reason.

As I said, I found the original, but I haven't had time to read it yet, because I'm too busy telling people that I've found it, but I haven't had time to read it yet, because I'm too busy telling people that I've found it, but I haven't...

Quote
LOL, yeah but sometimes we Americans take that right a little too far, whether or not we have authority.  ;D
Sure. But if you believe in your own right to free speech, and if you extend that to a universal right, then you have to tolerate Glenn Beck issuing orders to all and sundry.

But we have the right to order him to f**k off.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 09:09:31 PM by Gnu Ordure »