Study: Spanking increases childhood defiance and mental health issues

[Stone the Crow]

The closest to what was asked that you provided was the fact that kids who remember being punished tend to do better at schools. That is a correlation, but not a causation, not to mention that doing better at school has nothing to do with being a better adult in the end.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!

Congratulations! You just stumbled upon the very thing people have been saying about the study talked about in the original post! You know, the study that was handled exactly the same way by asking people questions, just more of them over a longer period of time. And the result was every bit as relevant as what you just said.

So again, congratulations!

I can't wait to see how you try to talk your way out of this now.

Well, that's a lie, as I actually can since I'm heading out the door.

[TITAN308]

Yes, and I stand by that claim. However, in case you have to resort to self-defense, violence is already unavoidable: it is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, someone is bound to get hurt. When you have to choose between two violences, one of which saves your life and another does not, it is clear what you have to choose. Doesn't make it acceptable, but it is not you who caused this violence, it is the person threatening your life.

This post is one giant contradiction. Nothing personal, but I'm not buying it.

[May90]

DING DING DING DING DING!!!

Congratulations! You just stumbled upon the very thing people have been saying about the study talked about in the original post! You know, the study that was handled exactly the same way by asking people questions, just more of them over a longer period of time. And the result was every bit as relevant as what you just said.

So again, congratulations!

I can't wait to see how you try to talk your way out of this now.

Well, that's a lie, as I actually can since I'm heading out the door.

Lol, take a deep breath. I haven't said anything about the study linked in the OP either.

This post is one giant contradiction. Nothing personal, but I'm not buying it.

*shrugs* Okay. I think you would make a better case against my point, if you mentioned BDSM roleplays, since those, indeed, would be hard to counter from that point of view.

[oplawlz]

So abusing the child is more about making you feel better, rather than exercising proper discipline?

Or about teaching the child to respect authority, something that's deteriorated rapidly since spanking fell out of vogue - I'm sure that's coincidence though.

[Maconi]

It's no different than raising a dog. Trying to train it through abuse/fear will have bad results. There are much better ways to "train" your kid. Bad parents have to resort to fear/violence because it's easier.

I was spanked all the time and while I'd like to say I turned out fine that doesn't mean that there weren't better alternatives.

Or about teaching the child to respect authority, something that's deteriorated rapidly since spanking fell out of vogue - I'm sure that's coincidence though.

Does your boss have to beat you for you to respect him? Well, maybe a bad boss... but a good boss can garner respect/admiration without resorting to fear/violence. It's no different with parenting.

[May90]

It's no different than raising a dog. Trying to train it through abuse/fear will have bad results. There are much better ways to "train" your kid. Bad parents have to resort to fear/violence because it's easier.

It is same way as bad leaders have to resort to oppression of their political opponents, because it's easier that dealing with criticism.

[Vespian]

It's no different than raising a dog. Trying to train it through abuse/fear will have bad results. There are much better ways to "train" your kid. Bad parents have to resort to fear/violence because it's easier.

I was spanked all the time and while I'd like to say I turned out fine that doesn't mean that there weren't better alternatives.

See, all the time. It matters. Spanking is not a method, it's a rare exception. I can't believe that regular spanking is healthy, it can't be. But never discard the option.

I think it's weird that any parent would choose it as the easy route though. Only parents that don't love their children would, I assume.

[Malkiah]

If you're willing to separate 'hitting your children' into either beating (wrong) and spanking by rare exception (could be good), then I'm willing to argue that the option should always be open.

if you're willing to separate 'hitting stupid people' into either beating (wrong) and spanking by rare exception (could be good) then i'm willing to argue that the option should always be open.

If you're just going to keep generalizing everything, there's no point to argue either way, because you're not here for an honest conversation, you just want to push that agenda.

i'm not generalizing anything in terms of your argument, but since titan declined (or has stopped watching the forum for the moment) to answer my question i'll pose it to you:
taking the exact same line of reasoning and conditions that you apply to spanking children, would that be acceptable to do to retarded people or the obstinately stupid?

[GrinningMan]

See, all the time. It matters. Spanking is not a method, it's a rare exception. I can't believe that regular spanking is healthy, it can't be. But never discard the option.

I think it's weird that any parent would choose it as the easy route though. Only parents that don't love their children would, I assume.

Well, it's better for their narrative. Of course they want to assume that every spilled glass of juice is a beating.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Where's my source brah. We have given you a shitload of opportunities to show us university sources, but they just won't appear. It's as if... wait for it...

When you make the stupid claims, you back them up. You're the one who claimed you wanted a "debate" (debate implies back and forth, meanwhile you just preach in this thread) and didn't back up your initial claim when I called you out on it. The onus lies on you. You keep trying to weasel out of it by demanding I backup something said MUCH later in the thread, far after your childish claims that you still have yet to substantiate beyond "I say so, so it's true."

So in other words, your continued insistence that I provide you with some kind of proof for some arbitrary statement before you provide your own proof, I will take that as politic speak for "I don't know what I'm talking about and can't even back up the immature things I say."

The fact that you quoted me as "Buttman" is just further testament to just how terrible your argument has been this entire time.

[Stone the Crow]

When you make the stupid claims, you back them up.

Still waiting for you to back up your stupid claim of having access to the study by providing a single paragraph from it. You know, since your claims that you've "skimmed" it thanks to your school's magical VPN (which doesn't do what I think you think it does, even if you were in school and had access to one). Which, you know, you've also claimed.

First you were only a joke. Now you've graduated to being a laughing stock. Grats.

[LilSaihah]

Anyone who trains an animal could've told you this.

The fact that you quoted me as "Buttman" is just further testament to just how terrible your argument has been this entire time.

YOU MUST BECOME FEAR ITSELF, WHAT DO YOU FEAR BRUCE WAYNE?

BUTTS

[want my Slimjim]

Then it's off to jail with them since they still wanna act like brats and now being retarded aswell. Parents need stronger discipline on those certain type of children.

[Kasierith]

$11.95 entry fee to look at methodology, outcomes, and the lot. Barring that information, this is about as meaningful as a flashy internet add saying "9 out of 10 men will get bigger dicks with this method! Click here to find out more!" And anyone who puts any merit to this in terms of a scientific approach without having said information is pretty sad. I'll just assume it's typical soft "science" bullshit until demonstrated otherwise.

[May90]

$11.95 entry fee to look at methodology, outcomes, and the lot. Barring that information, this is about as meaningful as a flashy internet add saying "9 out of 10 men will get bigger dicks with this method! Click here to find out more!" And anyone who puts any merit to this in terms of a scientific approach without having said information is pretty sad. I'll just assume it's typical soft "science" bullshit until demonstrated otherwise.

Many scientific journals work this way. Are you dismissing them all, just because the articles published in them are not free?

[Kasierith]

Many scientific journals work this way. Are you dismissing them all, just because the articles published in them are not free?

If the information is not made available for all participants in the discussion, it is not an actual discussion. In this situation, if the entire point of the discussion is that there is a decades old study with actual rigor to it, then questioning the rigor itself should be an inherently valid argument, to be exercised by both sides rather than blindly opposing it. Note that I'm not saying "spanking is good, they're wrong!" but rejecting the assumption that we should believe it because some plebeian article gave a minuscule amount of information. That aside, there is something you need to keep in mind. A lot of scientific journals actually do give more information in their public abstracts. Not enough to draw a sound conclusion as to the validity of the data, but enough to give you an idea of how it was structured.

Though, reminder. I'm in pharmacology. My field is based on the weight of scientific vigor, where millions and millions of dollars can be flushed down the drain for barely failing to meet external validity, and how medications are prescribed and insured can change based on things as superficially simple as being a secondary outcome instead of a primary outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention an impact factor of 1.7 is an indecent indication of the type of things they'll allow into their journal.

[Deleted]

Many scientific journals work this way. Are you dismissing them all, just because the articles published in them are not free?

That's not the point.

The point is that until someone here provides the full study, all 572 posts in this thread are no more than wasted bits and pixels.

Until then you cannot check where the researcher lies, we cannot check that either, and The Batman can keep saying he's seen it but it's secret stuff, and rightfully ridiculed for that.

[Deleted]

The science seems to be settled

Wouldn't be much of a science if it was "settled" after a single random study by a random school. It's not exactly a black and white issue where you can make such simple statements. Every single studied parent would have had to use spanking, or some other form of physical discipline, the correct way, in the exact right amount and at the exact right situation. As soon as there are parents studied who don't know what the fuck they're doing, this study goes from showing whether spanking works, to showing how physical discipline can be misused.

[Kasierith]

Shocking that hitting a child while they are still developing as a person could end badly. Who woulda thunk it?

- - - Updated - - -



If you are interested in the information you could just like... pay the entry fee? Not that it really matters, i think everyone here can see what side of the discussion you are on based on how you framed this, as if this scientific journal is trying to scam people like a penis pill company
xD

I mean, what do you think pop science articles and such do? They take a certain interpretation, spout it as fact, make it clickworthy, and then let people go about with horrendous misinformation, sometimes with conclusions completely contrary to the authors of the study if one were to read it. It is a scam, preying on the scientifically illiterate and those who have no comprehensive ability to dissect and analyze a study.

No, sorry, my argument stands. If the basis of the discussion is "this has scientific validity!!" than that has to be shown, not aimlessly stated. And sorry, but I'm not paying 11.95 for a single article from a low impact factor journal. You can make the argument against spanking all you want. But if you want to use a scientific study to bolster your arguments, argue with the study, not with some internet goof's spin on it.

[Archonite]

Spanking is fine, until people grow up, then we suddenly have other ways of punishment that dont violate a persons body /sarcasm. About the argument about how people in the past grew up better than todays youth, i dont believe its directly due to being spanked. Its about the mentality of the parents, that they cared about and were involved in how their children grew up. In the past, when a child got bad grades, the parents would be angry at the child. Today, its getting more and more common to be angry at the teacher or the school about it. The absence of physical punishment shouldnt mean the absence of any punishment. As adults we have personal space and bodily autonomy, we have unwanted advances and sexual abuse. We grow up being taught that our body is our own, that no one has the right to violate our rights and that physical violence should never be the first or the most common response to conflict. When a child does something wrong, it needs to learn that there are consequences. Not through physical punishment like how we stoned people in the middle ages, but through humane ways like a fine, suspension or being grounded/sent to timeout. I find it weird that our disciplining of children takes centuries to catch up to developments in the adult world. And yes, just like in real life, in very rare cases physical violence might be needed, but it should make the parent feel worse about it than the child. If ever you think physical punishment is a good form of discipline, its like starting a war to bring democracy. It might work, but at a much higher cost than expected, and generally isnt the right way.

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I think that sums up my biggest issue with physical punishment, that unconsciously it changes the way you think and handle things, and are more likely to use it when you see how easy and fast it worked last time. It ever so slowly changes your perception of when its appropriate to use, and this isnt noticeable to the person themselves, only the outside world. Ive heard my dad talk about how at school teachers would have a ruler or belt they'd use for punishment, but also how they still would pull pranks or talk/play during class. And when i was in school, ive seen classes that would be rowdy and noisy during one lesson, and the same class would be focused and quiet the next with a different teacher. And there was no physical punishment or threat involved at all. Those teachers or parents considering physical punishment lack the interpersonal skills themselves, and so dont see any other option. Im sure everyone knows of examples of people in a position of power, wether at school, at work or elsewhere, who cant seem to keep control and are fun to mess with. These people lack the skills to deal with the situation, and the last thing i would want is to give them the option to use physical violence to establish dominance. Just like how not everyone isnt a charismatic politician, we arent all perfect parents. When we lack tools or skills to properly raise and discipline our children, we should develop these skills, not abandon them.