No Spanking Laws

[bodie]

I don't really understand the response either,  maybe a misunderstanding.  I certainly did not mean to imply
anything like that. 

[BadgerTom]

I'm sure you didn't, it seems to be the hallmark of autism that people take things so damn personally!

People should learn to READ better, and comprehend the meanings of grammar and syntax!

[Gopher Gary]

I think kids need a little spanking every now and then.

[BadgerTom]

You would think that Gary!

That's why you don't live in the UK anymore!!!! Because you like "spanking" them kids too much!!!!

[odeon]

The problem with the argument is simply that it tries to draw parallels that I do not believe exist.

But which they claim do exist, and they also claim to have the numbers that prove it.

Now, you say that you are sceptical of statistics. That is a wise course of action. So am I. But it does form proof of sorts and if you want to contest it, you have to provide your own to counter it. That's the way debates work, you know that. All that back up your shit stuff.

[McGiver]

Excellent debate folks.  No winners.  Just an exchange of ideas.

[Gopher Gary]

Excellent debate folks.  No winners.  Just an exchange of ideas.

I always fucking win.

[McGiver]

Excellent debate folks.  No winners.  Just an exchange of ideas.

I always fucking win.

even in Vietnam nam?

[Al Swearegen]

You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?

Did  i imply this about you?  You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it -  corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting?  What word is it that describes what you mean?  I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know.  Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?  It was a  genuine question with no implications intended.

No worries,  i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.

Not that I have. Or did you misunderstand what I was saying?
Was not sure whether this was your way of asking whether I was saying that I accused you of saying "i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?" or were you accusing me of implying "you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?"
If the latter, I wasn't. If the former, no.

What I am saying is that I do not seek to pass judgement on your parenting style nor question its appropriateness and assume your intentions are good and you have the best interests of your child. That you do the best you can.
Now I also say I do not know your specific parenting methods (apart from a reward system you implemented once that had at least some effect with him at school when he was having issues there). I am not overly interested but will happily join in support discussions around this and have in the past. I am a parent too, after all.
Now IF I knew your parenting styles I could presume any particular form of punishment or whatever as a reprehensible act and ascribe it rather weighted and mean-spirited and harmful intent and being devoid of having any interests for the child for the purposes of mentally scarring the child or hurting their feelings or humiliating them (I have posted on this very thread the different ways this can be done. Parenting action condemned and so on). I don't. It is not that I could not make a half baked claim to that end, that anything you do to parent your child may be unfairly questioned as wrong.

You could say "Well sure, but I do not make those judgement or presume bad intent to you and your intentions or interests of your child either"
Then without placing words into your mouth I will cut and paste a couple of examples where you have done this.

If you do want to take your leave of this thread, by all means but stating you are losing interest because I am placing words into your mouth is pretty weak I would have thought

[Al Swearegen]

I'm sure you didn't, it seems to be the hallmark of autism that people take things so damn personally!

People should learn to READ better, and comprehend the meanings of grammar and syntax!

Goes both ways of course. The critic does not understand and so criticises what is written and assumes that the fault lays with the writer.

[Al Swearegen]

The problem with the argument is simply that it tries to draw parallels that I do not believe exist.

But which they claim do exist, and they also claim to have the numbers that prove it.

Now, you say that you are sceptical of statistics. That is a wise course of action. So am I. But it does form proof of sorts and if you want to contest it, you have to provide your own to counter it. That's the way debates work, you know that. All that back up your shit stuff.

Yes I am skeptical of the statistics. Let me ask though, in all honesty. If the agenda of the people was to "prove" such an end and there is no stats to accommodate the questions I ask in either the affirmative or negative, then you are not saying that without such access to such figures I am expected to retrieve "evidence" or "figures" out of thin air to back it.

If "corporal punishment" for example is used to include random furious beatings and also smacking bottoms when kids are naughty I call foul. If this is what is being assessed then I dismiss it. If there is a tarring with the same brush or muddying waters then those stats are redundant to what point they try top make with smacking bottoms.

[odeon]

It is, of course, possible to prove pretty much anything using statistics, but I doubt this is one of those cases. Here's the basic A/B comparison:

Smacking/spanking/etc allowed: crime rates/etc value at year XXXX is "X"
Smacking/spanking/etc banned: crime rates/etc value at year YYYY is "Y"

The years and their respective values are not numbers in any way controlled by the lawmakers. They are yearly statistics. They are also numbers that can be obtained in similar manner from other countries, as reported by the other country.

Now, if Y<X, I'm sure you agree that in principle it means the new legislation works. Note that since they avoid the issue of defining "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" by making them equal for the purposes of the new law, any smacking/spanking/etc is a crime and thus means every reported instance after the legislation was passed affects Y.

Of course, there is any number of other reasons for crime rates fluctuating so getting relevant numbers is hard.  What causes what? Does one change correlate to the new figure or not?

So the easiest solution is to interpret the numbers using the same methods for both X and Y. With everything else being equal, the easiest explanation (attributing the smallest change) is likely (or at least possible) to be true.

It's not perfect but it's what we have.

What's the alternative? Well, you could say that "no, I don't believe 'smacking' is harmful to my child" and be right, but in a situation where the laws also are permissive enough to allow the person who *hits* his child or smacks it with intent to harm to go unpunished, the statistics will be skewed, but for you it will be in the wrong direction for what you were trying to prove.

So your burden of proof is actually much harder than mine. For my study, I have been able to say "ban it all" and watch what happens, but you have to a) define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting", b) provide the statistics that support you definitions, and c) interpret them in such a way that a comparison between them and my study is possible and relevant.

See the difference? If I choose to ban every form of smacking, regardless of definition, my work is easier, with everything else being equal, and I actually don't have to work the numbers as hard.

If we assume that both parties might work the numbers in their favour but the basic data is freely available, it should be easy to make a feasibility study.

What does this mean? Well, only that I do have the numbers and an accompanying study, but you don't. If you mean to prove me wrong, you'll be busy for quite some time.

[odeon]

Oh, and btw--I don't for a second think or mean to imply that you are in any way a bad parent, Al. I know you are a great Dad.

[bodie]

You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?

Did  i imply this about you?  You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it -  corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting?  What word is it that describes what you mean?  I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know.  Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?  It was a  genuine question with no implications intended.

No worries,  i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.

Not that I have. Or did you misunderstand what I was saying?
Was not sure whether this was your way of asking whether I was saying that I accused you of saying "i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?" or were you accusing me of implying "you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?"
If the latter, I wasn't. If the former, no.

What I am saying is that I do not seek to pass judgement on your parenting style nor question its appropriateness and assume your intentions are good and you have the best interests of your child. That you do the best you can.
Now I also say I do not know your specific parenting methods (apart from a reward system you implemented once that had at least some effect with him at school when he was having issues there). I am not overly interested but will happily join in support discussions around this and have in the past. I am a parent too, after all.
Now IF I knew your parenting styles I could presume any particular form of punishment or whatever as a reprehensible act and ascribe it rather weighted and mean-spirited and harmful intent and being devoid of having any interests for the child for the purposes of mentally scarring the child or hurting their feelings or humiliating them (I have posted on this very thread the different ways this can be done. Parenting action condemned and so on). I don't. It is not that I could not make a half baked claim to that end, that anything you do to parent your child may be unfairly questioned as wrong.

You could say "Well sure, but I do not make those judgement or presume bad intent to you and your intentions or interests of your child either"
Then without placing words into your mouth I will cut and paste a couple of examples where you have done this.

If you do want to take your leave of this thread, by all means but stating you are losing interest because I am placing words into your mouth is pretty weak I would have thought

Sorry i just don't have the patience to decipher your posts,  it is so time consuming to pick through the  ''what if's'' and  ''suppose i''  and ''you could say''   and actually work out your point.      If you can't talk straight without going round the wrekin then i would need a translator.

[TA]

I have not been monitoring this heavily, but I will take a middle ground approach on the general subject, give the child a choice of punishment for a serious offense. They can either have a positive stimulus removed (loss of privileges, being sent to their room) or they can choose the aversive stimulus of a smacked bottom. Good, bad, what say you?