3 ms·

I intend to raise the kids in the same manner. If you hit an adult, it's assault. If you hit a dog, it's animal abuse. If you hit your spouse, it's domestic

by chroma 12y ago

I intend to raise the kids in the same manner. If you hit an adult, it's assault. If you hit a dog, it's animal abuse. If you hit your spouse, it's domestic violence. But hitting your child is not just legal, it's encouraged by many. People will spare no effort rationalizing justifications for it. To see how preposterous this is, use the reversal test.[1] If hitting children was unheard of, do you think society would move toward doing it? We've eliminated corporal punishment in almost every other domain. Drill sergeants can't hit soldiers. Even hitting prisoners is a violation of the 8th Amendment. Hitting children is historical cruft that needs to be eliminated. Edit: You removed the line saying you would hit your children. Well, at least I've quoted it. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test

tomp 12y ago
These comparisons with adults are intellectually dishonest. What would you do if two kids were fighting? Treat them as adults, throw them into jail for 5-10 years? Or would you use some shorter-term form of punishment? > Edit: You removed the line saying you would hit your children. Well, at least I've quoted it. Yes, I wanted to A/B test which paragraph was causing the down-votes.
- chroma 12y ago
  First, assault & battery are misdemeanors. They are punishable by up to a year in prison, and maximum sentences are rare. Second, violence is not acceptable as punishment, but it is acceptable (often necessary) in defense of self and others. If people are fighting, it's fine to break them up. That said, I doubt a larger adult needs to resort to blows to stop two kids fighting. Third, there are plenty of punishments that don't involve hitting. It's common to restrict access to TV or games. If all else fails, there's the dreaded, "No phone for a week."
  - tomp 12y ago
    > It's common to restrict access to TV or games. If all else fails, there's the dreaded, "No phone for a week." Except, of course, if you're limiting the TV anyways, and you don't allow kids to have (smart-)phones. In general, I agree, there are other kinds of punishment, but they might sometimes not be effective. Then what?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      You assume that physical violnce is effective. Research shows otherwise. And if you try beating your child and it doesn't work, what then? Physical violence is used by bad perents who don't know effective methods of discipline.
      - tomp 12y ago
        > You assume that physical violnce is effective. Research shows otherwise. Did you read the article? Research shows that corporal punishment can be effective, if done in the right way (i.e. don'y hit your kids when they are angry). > Physical violence is used by bad perents who don't know effective methods of discipline. We disagree with the definition of bad parent, apparently. I think my parents were very good. Of course, as I said initially, they very rarely resorted to physical punishment, but me and my brother knew that the threat was credible. Of course, I don't think any of their friends would agree with them, but then, none of them had comparably active and difficult children.

by chroma 12y ago

tomp 12y ago

These comparisons with adults are intellectually dishonest. What would you do if two kids were fighting? Treat them as adults, throw them into jail for 5-10 years? Or would you use some shorter-term form of punishment? > Edit: You removed the line saying you would hit your children. Well, at least I've quoted it. Yes, I wanted to A/B test which paragraph was causing the down-votes.

chroma 12y ago
First, assault & battery are misdemeanors. They are punishable by up to a year in prison, and maximum sentences are rare. Second, violence is not acceptable as punishment, but it is acceptable (often necessary) in defense of self and others. If people are fighting, it's fine to break them up. That said, I doubt a larger adult needs to resort to blows to stop two kids fighting. Third, there are plenty of punishments that don't involve hitting. It's common to restrict access to TV or games. If all else fails, there's the dreaded, "No phone for a week."
- tomp 12y ago
  > It's common to restrict access to TV or games. If all else fails, there's the dreaded, "No phone for a week." Except, of course, if you're limiting the TV anyways, and you don't allow kids to have (smart-)phones. In general, I agree, there are other kinds of punishment, but they might sometimes not be effective. Then what?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    You assume that physical violnce is effective. Research shows otherwise. And if you try beating your child and it doesn't work, what then? Physical violence is used by bad perents who don't know effective methods of discipline.
    - tomp 12y ago
      > You assume that physical violnce is effective. Research shows otherwise. Did you read the article? Research shows that corporal punishment can be effective, if done in the right way (i.e. don'y hit your kids when they are angry). > Physical violence is used by bad perents who don't know effective methods of discipline. We disagree with the definition of bad parent, apparently. I think my parents were very good. Of course, as I said initially, they very rarely resorted to physical punishment, but me and my brother knew that the threat was credible. Of course, I don't think any of their friends would agree with them, but then, none of them had comparably active and difficult children.