Grave disorder my points exactly; having a anti-abusive conviction is fine enough but what elevates modern ideas of a non-abuse attitude? magius you mentioned before that perhaps familys in the past abused there children but today we are more supportive and seek a reason behind a childs behaviour: are you not just criticising history by standing on some modern ideal? (how is non-abusive better than the historical value of abuse?-like say the spartan children on a opposite extreme) once a child goes to school there are two strong principles–bully or be bullied; children will naturally fear a bigger kid and try allie with them for some protection and added strength, bullying is a psychological nightmare (we’ve all been bullied) along with other child horrors and leads anti-moral behaviour (like smashing windows, shooting people etc,) opposite to what was endosed by the parents so this is why is see the parents superior physical authority as a useful tool in controlling a childs immoral tendencies in life. Id take a utilitarian stand in that i would rather not use physical abuse but i will when i have to, people just twenty years ago would of been appalled if someone else told them how to bring up there own child.
— To echo something that Magius said in a rather succinct way.
— Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. Isacc Asimov.
— Thanks Magius for informing me that capitals are considered yelling on message forums, i will henceforth use italics for emphasis.
Grave Disorder,
I believe that I have provided sufficient answers within my other posts within this very thread to the statements you make. Hence, I will ask whether you read them all? If so, and still not convinced I will re-establish the argument another way. Let me know.
Frighter,
to use your extreme example of a child who is shooting everyone everywhere is beyond the scope of what I was talking about. For I had as my assumption (which I made clear), that we were talking about rational average people. That aside, I will answer to your post. If a child is a killer, yelling or beating them (in my opinion) will do nothing but further destroy an already tarnished personality or increase their hate and wish for further bloodshed. Hence, punishment is still not the answer. The answer would be, in my opinion, to find out why they did it and face that in the way I exemplified in my previous posts.
Kesh stated:
Forgive me, but I am confused as to what you are asking. If I understand the above correctly you are asking me ‘what makes a society based on peace proliferate their ideas amongst the masses?’ - to which I would answer: 1) Peace itself. 2) Security. 3) More time to put resources (money, time, labour) to different aspects of furthering the goal of the congruence between nature and humankind. If kids didn’t have to worry about bullies in school, being beaten up, and all the other unpleasant intricacies that come along with that kind of a mentality, then kids grade scores would rise, kids would move their imaginations into new spheres of creativity.
Kesh stated:
What does it matter whether it is a modern ideal or not? What does it matter from what time or place it comes from? Why not judge it on it’s merits alone? Put another way, do you not think a life without having to punish your child, being punished yourself, and an overall decrease in violence to be a good thing? Answer that and we can move on to the more difficult task of discussing whether such a system is possible, and if so how might we go about implementing it, and lastly what future consequences may we run into from the transition from the way we live now to the, not yet propose, new system empty of blame and punishment.
Kesh asked?
Very simple, in my opinion, and I don’t mean to say that you are inept for also not seeing it. Like I stated before, if you can make your child understand something without having to yell, embarrassing, or physically hurting your child would you not choose to do it the peaceful way rather than the harmful and psychologically damaging way?
Kesh stated:
You are committing the False Dichotomy fallacy where you bring many alternative down to two. Although there are bullies and those who get bullied is school, in my experience, they are both the minority and the rest are somewhere inbetween.
Kesh stated:
Once again, False Dichotomy. You keep focusing on extremes. Life is just not like that in its entirety. I’ve never, as you put it naturally feared someone bigger than me. I have feared someone bigger than me when they expressed agression or a willingness to harm me. That is different from naturally fearing someone because they are bigger. Furthermore, those that have done so in my past, have never won my allyship nor have I gone seeking for it.
Kesh stated:
If you can realize how psychologically damaging bully’s can be, I don’t understand how you can’t follow the same logic to parents.
Kesh stated:
I am arguing against your assumed ‘have to’ to physical abuse (you said it I didn’t). You have failed to illustrate or explain even one situation in which physical abuse of your child will bring about more happiness for the most people rather than some other system. You see, it appears that you are working only by the principle which you mention, but have you not tried any other systems other than hurt, whether it be physical, psychological, or any other kind? Lastly, if by your last sentence you mean to say that I have no right sharing with you my beliefs on how to raise kids, then you have come to the wrong place and shouldn’t have entered the topic in the first place. Furthermore, if that wasn’t the reason you made that statement, I would greatly appreciate you explaining to me what other reason you may have had for it.
What’s your take?
Magius-
In an ideal world, I would say you are correct. Infact, I want you to be right. However, I think that a child raised without ever being yelled at is missing out on some valuable lessons: 1.) that just because someone yells at you, it doesn’t mean thay don’t love you, and 2.) how to deal with someone that is yelling at you.
Here are some examples-
My father spanked my brothers and I. He yelled at us quite regularly as well (4 boys, of course we’re going to do stupid things and get yelled at). However, my father loves us as much as is humanly possible. And perhaps my father could have raised us without ever raising his voice or laying a hand upon us. However, if he hadn’t, I would not know how to deal with someone blatanly yelling at me. Because my father yelled at me, I learned to cope, to manage myself in such situations without losing my head so to speak. I recall in highschool, having a very aggressive basketball coach that would yell and scream at you right to your face. Some kids couldn’t handle it. The only reason I could was because I learned from my father, to listen to the message, not the screaming. People yell because they have lost their temper, or their patience has been depleted. How many times can you watch someone screw up a basketball play, before you don’t know if they understand how to do it? This is when some people yell. Is it right? No. Is it a fact of life that not everyone in this world can contain their frustration?raised their In present day society, yes. If nobody ever became sso frustrated they yelled, then there would be no need to develop the skills of coping with someone yelling at you. However, I don’t see this as being a reality in the near future.
I don’t think yelling should be viewed as wrong. Yelling simply means that there is a heightened state of emotions- that people care about what is going on. Example: my brother refuses to wear sunscreen. His nose is constantly peeling. I have said to him countless times, “wear sunscreen, you don’t want cancer do you?” but he won’t listen. I bought him sunscreen. He still didn’t use it. One day I snapped (because I care) and frustratedly shouted, “Wear sunscreen or your goddamn nose is going to burn off dumbshit!” I tried to understand what his aversion was to wearing sunscreen, but he would not say. At what point do you cease to care as your loved ones act idiotically? You don’t. And when you have exercised all of your options, there is nothing like yelling at someone to make them realize that they really have an issue that needs to be dealt with.
I have really blabbered on, however I hope I have illustrated that sometimes it is neccessary to raise your voice. With that being the case, it is also neccessary for people to know how to deal with someone who raises his voice. If someone is yellling at me, I interpret that as it is their last straw, and I have been oblivious to something that has been aggravating them for quite sometime; or that they are just an asshole. Atleast I will have the serenity to calmly listen to their bantering and decide which is true.
Is it wrong to raise a child without ever yelling at them? Of course not. I don’t think either way is better. each has its drawbacks.
One more quick example. I have a friend whose family is rather “straightforward” so to speak. Meaning, they are brutally honest with eachother. When I first began hanging out with this person, I couldn’t decide whether he was a jerk or not. as time went by, I realized that he was socialized differently than I was. That was the major difference. If he didn’t like your shirt, he would tell you. In my family, we were taught “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”. How refreshing though, to be able to say exactly how you feel, and not have the other person be hurt by it? That is the dynamic of their family. If the son tells his mother “I don’t like your dress,”(because he doesn’t want her to look foolish) she can listen to his opinion, and decide if she agrees. If she doesn’t she doesn’t care, neither does he. They are an Arabic family, so I am curious if this is a cultural phenomenon. Anyhow, I think this relates to yelling in families, as how refreshing is it to not have to control your frustration? If you’re frustrated you yell, and the other person knows that it only means you’re frustrated, not that you hate them. I think children raised in families that “yell” interpret yelling differently than those who haven’t. Who is to say one way is better? I’m not too sure you can. They are simply different.
On a sidenote, I have not touched on the subject of spanking. I’m not sure where I stand, but I can’t really imagine any other way to wake a child up to reality. My parent’s would rarely spank us. When they did, it was because we would not listen otherwise. And my parents would give us every opportunity to reform before spanking. But sometimes we wouldn’t, we needed to be spanked. For some reason, it is what was needed to make us realize the severity of what we were doing. Nothing else would. All in all, I do think spanking should be avoided if possible. Who’s to say if its always possible?
couldnt have put it better myself.
Matthew E stated:
I will be as forthcoming as I can Matthew, I hope you will forgive me but all I read of your post was the above quote and the one Frigther quoted in the following post. Why? Because your whole post has the above as its foundation, and the fact that you are making examples to help explain the above. I myself am very fond of using examples to illustrate points, I also enjoy it when others use them to, for which reason I would not want you to stop using examples.
To the point, before you get into points 1 and 2 I would have to agree with you completely. Sound like a contradiction? I hope you see how it isn’t, but I will explain just in case. The reason I believe my previous posts to be correct, as well as, your above quote is because I was arguing against using yelling to punish someone. My chief impedus, though two-fold, can be seen as one: exnay on punishay and blamay. No punishing and no blaming. In the above quote, you say that a child who is raised without being yelled at is missing something in life. This is not to say that they should or shouldn’t be yelled as punishment or blame. I hope this brings the distinction of your quote and my posts into clarity. I also wish to add, that because of the way the world works children should be taught to handle situation where they are being yelled at. You see, it should be used to make them stronger, it should not be used as leverage, advantage, or a weakness by which to manipulate and control them. Which, with time, leads to confusion, frustration, anger, and as many of us know, we soon instinctively copy the same behaviour. The two points you raised are excellent ones, and as such are two points I would definitely teach my child about humankind and how strangely they work.
Matthew E stated:
If I may say so, the key error within the above quote is the statement my parents would give us every opportunity to reform before spanking. An example here would be of help. But, if you think of times, memories, that that statement refers to try to think about the things they did try, how long they tried, how many things did they try, and in what context did they try, and try to see whether it is fair of you to say that they gave you EVERY opportunity to reform. I believe I had a pretty good and fair upbringing from my parents, but I cannot say in any situation that they gave me EVERY opportunity to reform before punishment was applied. Furthermore, I hope it won’t be too difficult to debate with you on the topic, as your next following sentence throws me in dismay, I am referring to you believing you actually NEEDED to be spanked. It’s almost like you are convincing yourself you needed it in order to make sense of the matter and the situation of a parent giving you harm when it may not be right to do it. Furthermore, you make the illustrate the notion that there are times as a child when only punishment will make you realize the severity of what you do, nothing else. Yet then you go onto say that all in all you are against punishment. I am confused, it’s as though you don’t want to commit to either side because you see the problem on both sides, instead you make mention of each side where you think it suits you best. I think maybe if you elaborated more, gave examples possibly, on specific situations where punishment is the only thing that will make a child realize the severity of its act, and then give example of specific situations where punished is never the right thing to do to make a child realize the severity of its action. All of these in your opinion ofcourse, it is your opinion I am interested in.
A man named Piaget did a study of children and how they work around rules. He found that children younger than 5 tend to play without rules. Kids 5-9 years old begin to emulate others by acting according to rules, but not really understanding why there are rules, or even why they are emulating them. FInally, kids 10+ begin to learn that rules are changeable, and apply differently in different situations, etc. My point here being, if Piaget is correct, what is the point of punishing a child before five, when apparently they wouldn’t even understand what they have done wrong or why they are being punished. Secondly, you may notice that upbringing begins with punishment first, and understand somewhere in the background, if there at all. For kids are punished before they can be reasoned and rationalized with. Moreover, I believe such punishment stunts their growing potential in all aspects, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise - for the simple reason that uncertainty breeds stress, especially when there are unpleasant consequences at stake. A child who knows not what they have done or why it is wrong, proceeds to get punished, and then enters into a state of uncertainty around that individual. They have come to associate great pleasures but also confusing and unpredictably (for the time being) unpleasant behaviour from the parent. Because they don’t know why they were punished, they come to believe that such a punishment can come at any time for any reason. Often we can see this on the childs face when their parent gets a certain tone or moves in a demeanor that resembles them in the memory of the child when they are being punished. Luckily, as children we are much more adaptable and easily change modes from stressed to happy. But as time goes on and life gets harder, these modes of stress become harder and harder to overcome.
What’s your take?
Magius-
I invite you to read the entirety of my previous article, it may clear up a few issues.
You mentioned how I seemed to be rather wishy-washy with regards to my stance on spanking, and your right, I am. I hope I never have to spank my child. However, if they are going down an unhealthy path at an early age, I think it is a tool that should not be ruled out.
But more specifically, you said-
Good point, however, don’t you agree that there are times when even though every opportunity has not been exhausted, the strictest form of consequences must be used because of the results of using them too late? Of course it is impossible to exhaust every possibility, however, by attempting to use all of the alternatives to spanking, when you finally get around to spanking the child (if all the other techniques failed) spanking probably won’t work, as it would be too late. It’s kind of like threatening to spank a sixteen year old that has started using drugs, that has never been spanked before- too little too late.
This is the problem that children and even adults have; they do not realize that their present course of action is leading down an unhealthy path. Think of an alcoholic; at some point it was just “social drinking”. One day, his friends begin to mention that he needs to tone it down, but he doesn’t listen: he doesn’t think he has a problem. Of course he is developing a problem, but simply does not realize it. Sadly, no one can force an alcoholic to change his ways. But a parent can force their child to. It is at times like these when spanking is necessary. If a child is beginnning to disregard the words of his parents, action needs to be swiftly taken so that they do not grow beyond their parent’s control. Once a child does not listen to his parents, there are big problems. This is when my father would lay down the law. And yes, I sincerely believe that it needed to be done, boy was I a bad kid 
.
Are there ways to keep a child respecting your parental word without spanking? I hope and think so. Before I have children, a lot of research will go into learning about alternative methods of child rearing. Does this mean these methods are better than spanking? Really, it’s hard to say. How would I know if I would have turned out the same (or better) without being spanked. Conversely, I could have turned out worse if I hadn’t. Perhaps I am wrong and some studies have been done. As of now, I don’t know. With that in mind, I say that spanking can’t be ruled out entirely.
Magius also stated
I have thought about this before, and I find it interesting you brought it up. Here are my thoughts on the matter. Let us suppose that it can be empirically proven that spanking is wrong, or rather, that there are alternative methods that are as successful or more successful than spanking. Does this mean that I had an abusive childhood, and that my parents were evil? No. What this means, is that my parents did what they sincerely believed to be the best course of action possible. They spanked me not because they wanted to, but because they didn’t know of anything else to do that would turn me into the upstanding young man that I am today =). Their intent was as true as the intent of the parent that never laid a hand on their child. That is what matters. I think children that are spanked by their parents all come to realize this. But then again, this is assuming that there are alternatives that will work as well spanking.
— That last point was extremely interesting. Cultural motifs (such as spanking) may not be relevant in a different time or society. (ethical relativism). In addition psychological research may one day make spanking obsolete…
Magius
I had no time to post for bit, so Magius i hope you’ll hear me out. I dont see how a child that has been deprived of violence would be more creative. You seem to see war as a event done by other people, evil people; i take a different view, in that war can be good, it gives a nation a sense of togetherness in the face of a “so called evil” and would of brought out the best in man as well as the horribleness of man. In times of disorder, violence and horror–have they also not been the times of greatest creativity, in art, science, political thinking etc: if you ride a society or a person from violence whats left? for me it would be a growing sense of restless, nothingness, lack of meaning or aim in anything. Some liberal life were the goal is to live out your life as unnoticeable as possible.
Marshall McDaniel
If it was to make spanking obsolete, then wouldnt it make all violence obsolete eventually? then what would we have, a whole people psychologically showboating each other and at the same time placing a morality down of non-violence that isnt at all human (but then again men are no longer hunter gathers so perhaps men are turning into women, just women with a willy.) Marshall i could only see that as a civilization of robots; living off someone’s moral psychological research that could be wholly wrong or right without us having any faculty of knowing if it was a “so-called-truth” or better way to live out life.
I understand im assuming alot, as Magius calls False Dichotomy fallacy, but from childhood and past, i known friends and people that at times have put up with a problematic home life and from time to time in there youth were slapped. Many of there characters developed through this and they turned out to be funny, interesting people. Ive also known others whos parents tryed to reason with there child instead and watched them grow into spoiled brat’s who i wouldnt of wasted my time with, (although others have turned out to be my friends and interesting in there own right). I myself was slapped on rare occasions when i had done something really bad (in “really bad†I mean something like taking a knife to infant school etc), i learned to live with that bit of abuse though, but my auntie and uncle were ruthless with my cousins partially the male of them (he ended up kicking a mans face in and got put in a young offenders prison.) He was always in trouble since a really young kid; they were unhappy with life and they couldnt handle him, i didnt put it down to physical abuse though, as they never really slapped him much (or not compared to what i got) it was namely the psychological nightmare they put him through like groundings and other things.
I’ve just read my last post from yesterday and 
i dont agree with just about anything ive said on it. 
(particularly inferring that psychology will lead to robots) psychology is still a infant compared to science and philosophy. i would be grateful if perhaps one of the moderators could delet my last that and this post.
Kesh-
I hope your post isn’t removed because of the follow sentence it contains-
This is an astute assertion. If we were able to control human behavior completely, we wouldn’t need spanking. However, we can’t control human behavior, atleast not yet. One could argue that this is the reason that spanking and all violence in general exist. I previously said, under such ideal conditions, spanking would not be necessary. Unfortunatly, we don’t live in an ideal world or one in which we have complete knowledge and mastery of the human psyche. Spanking is the side-effect of our own ignorance. If you hadn’t posted that, I would have never come to such a conclusion.
— Kesh! Maybe i should have said maybe one day psychological research will prove spanking inefficacious, it will be up to the parents (hopefully if Big Brother lets them) to make it obsolete.
— Your argument that that would one day obviate all violence seems a bit like a slippery slope argument, but it is nevertheless very interesting…
But you don’t stand by that post so i will not take issue.
Of course! What if the kid was on fire? You wouldn’t just stand there letting him/her burn would you?
But in regards to punishment, smacking shouldn’t be made illegal, but parents should do their best to seek other alternatives. One instance I do believe smacking to be valuable is if the child is physically hurting another person. They should be given a smack so they learn that physical punishment is only necessary where violence is involved. They will learn if they cause pain, then they must be prepared to experience pain themselves (albeit mild and temporary). For other things, the parent should restrain themselves from smacking the child and use other alternatives.
Something like equal force against equal force! Very good argument. If the kid is getting ready to beat up somebody and nothing else works…
(hey, yall kids quit that there fightin’ for i beat yer butt 
)
It depends on the age, mental ability and behaviour of the child. A 13+ year old who has hit you deserves to be hit back no matter what their relationship unless they are mentally ill. But that should be carried out by the state rather than by us as individuals.
This is true. I am against physical punishment, as it can cause negative side-effects in some children, as it did to me. Also, as Skinner pointed out, punishment only temporarily suppresses misbehavior when the punishing agent is present, i.e. it does not teach alternate behavior. If it does not teach alternate behavior, it does not seem very useful to me. Kids can also get away with things outside of home. I would get spanked for misbehaving at home, yet I could misbehave with my friends and at recess, for I knew that I would not get spanked for it. I think that we should make a law that requires all people in secondary school to take parenting courses so that they will know how to raise their children in a good and nonviolent manner. I belive that most parents punish their kids the same way they were punished as kids, hence the common use of physical punishment. They have no training, and they don’t know what to do, so they just spank the kids to shut them up. With this training, things would go much more smoothly.
I never understood spanking children either. (Maybe spanking grown ups would be more rewarding, 
) What were they thinking? Why resort to physical punishment when it is the mind they are tying to change or train. Words are better–that’s what language is for, to train, explain, etc.
listen to me. Now. He who is with us… is AGAINsht ush!
I say beat them. Beat them when they wake up. Beat them before and after eating breakfast. Beat them before and after school. Beat them before, while, and after doing homework. Beat them while brushing their teeth and beat them while sleeping. If they want to leave, as I stated in an earlier post; beat them after stripping them of everything that doesn’t belong to them… and beat them, finally, while going out the door.
Just kidding. But it read funny, though.
As far as I’m concerned, the following kinds of people actually hit their children:
1 emotionally unstable
2 poorly educated
3 less humane
To hit is to love? Come on, there’s got be better ways. When there is no other way, that means your children are already hopelessly brought up.
Marshall McDaniel wrote:
Psychologist have already proved this. Children do what they want to do. The most effective way to curve a childs behavior is to censure them mildly. An example would be a stern look, and maybe the word “no”. The child will automatically comply, but he really wont have justified reason to do so. The psychology behind this is: when a child is punished with spanking or the like, he has a reason for why he shouldnt do the activity anymore. It doesnt make him not want to do it, he just knows now to do it and not get caught. On the other hand, if the child doesnt have sufficient punishment to realize, “I cant do this because I will get spanked”, they will have to come up with their own reason for not engaging in the behavior. Insufficient punishment yields the thinking process, “if I am not doing this behavior, and there are no fresh reasons as to why I am not doing this behavior(this occurs because the stern look is subtle, and is not strong enough for the child to think about it as being the reason for not engaging in the activity), then I must not enjoy this behavior.” Human beings have a natural mechanism in which we rationalize our behavior. So if he isnt participating in the behavior, he believes that he doesnt want to do it anymore. He has no other reasons to believe he is being forced into complying.