6 ms·

I honestly don't get this. When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? We became too liberal with even the basics.

AndrewDucker 8y ago
How is hitting a child not physical violence? What definition of violence are you using which doesn't include hitting children?
- war1025 8y ago
  There is a huge difference between swatting someone to get their attention and hitting someone with enough force to cause injury.
  - lmm 8y ago
    If it's meant as a punishment it's not "to get their attention"; it's done to inflict pain. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard.
    - JamesBarney 8y ago
      I don't think how to deal with an adult is a good guide for what's an acceptable way to deal with children. For instance if someone were to put their wife in timeout or take away her allowance that would make them an abusive a-hole, but these are perfectly acceptable punishments for a child. Likewise leaving one's wife is an acceptable option for an adult but not for a child.
      - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
        I would put my child in time-out if he left his wife.
    - war1025 8y ago
      Children are driven mainly by emotion. Particularly young children. Pain is an emotion that tends to override other emotions. A brief, sharp pain can snap them out of an emotional loop they found themselves caught in. Since the pain is very brief, they tend to revert back to a much more reasonable state afterwards. All that said, yes there is a difference between parenting and abuse. However, children are not tiny adults. They are tiny humans. You can often tell how they are feeling or why they are feeling that way, but it isn't by thinking the way a well-adjusted adult would. The whole point of parenting is to help them get to that point eventually.
      - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
        And 99% of the non-spanking arguments ignore these truths and seek to treat children like tiny adults. If treating children like adults were possible, then we would redefine them to be adults and let them go on with their lives. If someone acts the same way at 25 that he acts at 13, that person would be a sociopath. But 13-year-olds are rarely sociopaths (i.e., they are only when truly mentally ill). Children can't function the same way adults do, and we can't treat them the same way, full stop.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - Maken 8y ago
      >Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard. And that's pretty much the key point. You cannot pretend children are adults.
    - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
      If we could treat children the way we treat adults, they wouldn't be children, they'd be adults. This is the kind of willful obtuseness the poster upthread is talking about.
      - savingthrow 8y ago
        I'm not asking people to treat children as adults. I'm just saying that hitting a child is always as abusive as hitting an adult, and often more so because the child has no chance of escape. There are many ways of parenting, and msot of them do not include violence against the child. This is why hitting children is illegal in many countries. Never mind treating children as adults: how about we treat them as humans, with rights that need to be protected?
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Our society draws lots of important distinctions between adults and children.
- weberc2 8y ago
  A definition of violence that doesn't distinguish between a completely non-injurious form of discipline and an abusive, injurious form is not very useful and its proponents are willfully obtuse.
  - savingthrow 8y ago
    It is injurious. It causes harm. We know it causes harm. But let's go with your incorrect assertion that it doesn't cause harm. Try slapping one of your co-workers, and then in court saying "but it was a completely non-injurious form of discipline" and see how far you get.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Citation needed and I’m not the legal nor moral guardian of my coworkers. What a terrible analogy.
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  You don't get it. If we hit our children more, we can solve global warming. See? Also, this is why you should be a patriot and subscribe to Science rather than Nature.
x220 8y ago
If you can hit your kid, why can't I also hit my dog?
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  People use shock collars(physical pain as punishment) on their dog all the time and there are large dog training companies built around this modality.
  - x220 8y ago
    There are also a lot of people who hit their dogs. Is this ok?
  - ip26 8y ago
    FWIW I've zapped myself with a shock collar before using it on my dog and it's a lot more like, well, "shock" as in surprise mixed with discomfort. I would almost describe it as like instantaneous onset of the feeling of when your leg falls asleep. If you've ever done the 9V battery on the tongue, that's mostly what it is.
- Maken 8y ago
  I literally see nothing wrong with hitting a pet if it gets out of control.
Frondo 8y ago
Spanking a child is absolutely violence. It's just been a socially acceptable form of violence for millennia, just like some killing (either in wars or e.g. with a death penalty) has been socially acceptable for as long. The question isn't, "is spanking violence?" It's "are norms changing around whether spanking is socially acceptable?" And now, for a lot of people, no, it isn't. Hitting a child to punish them is no longer "the basics" for a lot of people, even if it's how a lot of the older generation grew up and took for granted. I have no kids, but most of my peers do now, and spanking is sooooo much off the table, it's on par with overt racism (saying the n-word, saying discrimination is okay, etc). Absolute social taboo, and absolutely no question that it's "physical violence".
dragonwriter 8y ago
> When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? It's always been physical violence, it just used to be universally accepted physical violence, just like beating (and raping) your wife was. Now it's become less accepted, just as the other two have.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
I think it stems from the fact that fewer and fewer people are having children at all, and this opinion often comes from people who don't have children, don't understand children, or who have children who walk all over them. Children are not rational creatures, or at least not always, once you get to a certain age. There are only so many ways to deal with them, and in my opinion, as the father of 4 adult children, spanking or similar correction may be called for in a situation where the child has put himself or someone else into danger. Because there's one thing people who aren't around children don't understand and that's how many times the average child escapes serious injury or even death. I've seen many situations where no one is being negligent, but which serious, even fatal injuries could easily have happened. You might have the most "enlightened" attitude towards discipline in the world, but that can all change when your child rushes out into traffic or does something else equally dangerous. Of course, in response to the inescapable dangers of life, we are more and more seeing parents who simply don't allow their kids to be exposed to any source of potential danger, and they grow up to be completely helpless and start voting socialist.

AndrewDucker 8y ago

How is hitting a child not physical violence? What definition of violence are you using which doesn't include hitting children?

war1025 8y ago
There is a huge difference between swatting someone to get their attention and hitting someone with enough force to cause injury.
- lmm 8y ago
  If it's meant as a punishment it's not "to get their attention"; it's done to inflict pain. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard.
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    I don't think how to deal with an adult is a good guide for what's an acceptable way to deal with children. For instance if someone were to put their wife in timeout or take away her allowance that would make them an abusive a-hole, but these are perfectly acceptable punishments for a child. Likewise leaving one's wife is an acceptable option for an adult but not for a child.
    - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
      I would put my child in time-out if he left his wife.
  - war1025 8y ago
    Children are driven mainly by emotion. Particularly young children. Pain is an emotion that tends to override other emotions. A brief, sharp pain can snap them out of an emotional loop they found themselves caught in. Since the pain is very brief, they tend to revert back to a much more reasonable state afterwards. All that said, yes there is a difference between parenting and abuse. However, children are not tiny adults. They are tiny humans. You can often tell how they are feeling or why they are feeling that way, but it isn't by thinking the way a well-adjusted adult would. The whole point of parenting is to help them get to that point eventually.
    - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
      And 99% of the non-spanking arguments ignore these truths and seek to treat children like tiny adults. If treating children like adults were possible, then we would redefine them to be adults and let them go on with their lives. If someone acts the same way at 25 that he acts at 13, that person would be a sociopath. But 13-year-olds are rarely sociopaths (i.e., they are only when truly mentally ill). Children can't function the same way adults do, and we can't treat them the same way, full stop.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - Maken 8y ago
    >Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard. And that's pretty much the key point. You cannot pretend children are adults.
  - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
    If we could treat children the way we treat adults, they wouldn't be children, they'd be adults. This is the kind of willful obtuseness the poster upthread is talking about.
    - savingthrow 8y ago
      I'm not asking people to treat children as adults. I'm just saying that hitting a child is always as abusive as hitting an adult, and often more so because the child has no chance of escape. There are many ways of parenting, and msot of them do not include violence against the child. This is why hitting children is illegal in many countries. Never mind treating children as adults: how about we treat them as humans, with rights that need to be protected?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Our society draws lots of important distinctions between adults and children.
weberc2 8y ago
A definition of violence that doesn't distinguish between a completely non-injurious form of discipline and an abusive, injurious form is not very useful and its proponents are willfully obtuse.
- savingthrow 8y ago
  It is injurious. It causes harm. We know it causes harm. But let's go with your incorrect assertion that it doesn't cause harm. Try slapping one of your co-workers, and then in court saying "but it was a completely non-injurious form of discipline" and see how far you get.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Citation needed and I’m not the legal nor moral guardian of my coworkers. What a terrible analogy.
unknownkadath 8y ago
You don't get it. If we hit our children more, we can solve global warming. See? Also, this is why you should be a patriot and subscribe to Science rather than Nature.

x220 8y ago

If you can hit your kid, why can't I also hit my dog?

JamesBarney 8y ago
People use shock collars(physical pain as punishment) on their dog all the time and there are large dog training companies built around this modality.
- x220 8y ago
  There are also a lot of people who hit their dogs. Is this ok?
- ip26 8y ago
  FWIW I've zapped myself with a shock collar before using it on my dog and it's a lot more like, well, "shock" as in surprise mixed with discomfort. I would almost describe it as like instantaneous onset of the feeling of when your leg falls asleep. If you've ever done the 9V battery on the tongue, that's mostly what it is.
Maken 8y ago
I literally see nothing wrong with hitting a pet if it gets out of control.

Frondo 8y ago

Spanking a child is absolutely violence. It's just been a socially acceptable form of violence for millennia, just like some killing (either in wars or e.g. with a death penalty) has been socially acceptable for as long. The question isn't, "is spanking violence?" It's "are norms changing around whether spanking is socially acceptable?" And now, for a lot of people, no, it isn't. Hitting a child to punish them is no longer "the basics" for a lot of people, even if it's how a lot of the older generation grew up and took for granted. I have no kids, but most of my peers do now, and spanking is sooooo much off the table, it's on par with overt racism (saying the n-word, saying discrimination is okay, etc). Absolute social taboo, and absolutely no question that it's "physical violence".

dragonwriter 8y ago

> When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? It's always been physical violence, it just used to be universally accepted physical violence, just like beating (and raping) your wife was. Now it's become less accepted, just as the other two have.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago

I think it stems from the fact that fewer and fewer people are having children at all, and this opinion often comes from people who don't have children, don't understand children, or who have children who walk all over them. Children are not rational creatures, or at least not always, once you get to a certain age. There are only so many ways to deal with them, and in my opinion, as the father of 4 adult children, spanking or similar correction may be called for in a situation where the child has put himself or someone else into danger. Because there's one thing people who aren't around children don't understand and that's how many times the average child escapes serious injury or even death. I've seen many situations where no one is being negligent, but which serious, even fatal injuries could easily have happened. You might have the most "enlightened" attitude towards discipline in the world, but that can all change when your child rushes out into traffic or does something else equally dangerous. Of course, in response to the inescapable dangers of life, we are more and more seeing parents who simply don't allow their kids to be exposed to any source of potential danger, and they grow up to be completely helpless and start voting socialist.