|
On November 03 2011 08:13 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 07:50 grobo wrote:On November 03 2011 07:43 Zarak wrote:
In my opinion the people that think this is too rough had very easy parents. Most dads with their son if they did something wrong they would beat the shit out of them with their fist. She is just getting a brutal spanking with a belt. I do agree though the language should was very excessive and a dicipline should not be out of hate like it seems like he is feeling it should only be done out of love and for some people it takes a physical beating to get through to them.
Not trying to offend anyone here just my personal opinion Are you serious? what kind of uncivilized barbarian country are you coming from where it's considered normal for a father to use his fists to beat the shit out of their son? You guys are all missing the point. HE'S BEATING HER FOR USING THE INTERNET IN A TIME WHERE THE INTERNET IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF ENTERTAINING. She didn't watch porn or bad mouth anyone. It's not discipline it's abuse of power against his daughter.
woah what a great post...
|
On November 03 2011 08:13 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 07:50 grobo wrote:On November 03 2011 07:43 Zarak wrote:
In my opinion the people that think this is too rough had very easy parents. Most dads with their son if they did something wrong they would beat the shit out of them with their fist. She is just getting a brutal spanking with a belt. I do agree though the language should was very excessive and a dicipline should not be out of hate like it seems like he is feeling it should only be done out of love and for some people it takes a physical beating to get through to them.
Not trying to offend anyone here just my personal opinion Are you serious? what kind of uncivilized barbarian country are you coming from where it's considered normal for a father to use his fists to beat the shit out of their son? You guys are all missing the point. HE'S BEATING HER FOR USING THE INTERNET IN A TIME WHERE THE INTERNET IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF ENTERTAINING. She didn't watch porn or bad mouth anyone. It's not discipline it's abuse of power against his daughter.
That's beside the point..
Whether it was watching porn, or smoking pot, or just not praying before eating, parents should give their kids the freedom to do what they want, as long as it's socially acceptable.
And then beating their kids is unacceptable, whatever the reason is.
|
On November 03 2011 08:13 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 07:50 grobo wrote:On November 03 2011 07:43 Zarak wrote:
In my opinion the people that think this is too rough had very easy parents. Most dads with their son if they did something wrong they would beat the shit out of them with their fist. She is just getting a brutal spanking with a belt. I do agree though the language should was very excessive and a dicipline should not be out of hate like it seems like he is feeling it should only be done out of love and for some people it takes a physical beating to get through to them.
Not trying to offend anyone here just my personal opinion Are you serious? what kind of uncivilized barbarian country are you coming from where it's considered normal for a father to use his fists to beat the shit out of their son? You guys are all missing the point. HE'S BEATING HER FOR USING THE INTERNET IN A TIME WHERE THE INTERNET IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF ENTERTAINING. She didn't watch porn or bad mouth anyone. It's not discipline it's abuse of power against his daughter.
No you are missing the point. Even if she smoked pot and crashed the car in to the church that beating up shouldn't be aloud. Or rather, it should never be aloud to beat you kids. Period.
|
On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been [b]THOROUGHLY[/b/] studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology.
I am not saying it is right but I am pretty sure it is the rationale. Me personally if I ever had kids I probably wouldn't I don't think it is necessary. I also do not think being hit a few times by responsible parents is going to leave you any worse off. Maybe if it is a regular punishment and the parents do not handle it correctly. But for the most part your parents have to mess up pretty bad to cause a kid to grow up wrong. Getting involved in a bad group of friends is far worse.
|
On November 03 2011 08:07 h41fgod wrote:
Quotidian. You got this. I leave anything I wanted to say in this thread to you.
lol.. thanks for the vote of confidence I guess. I'm not an expert, I just worked for 14 months at a daycare and basically skimmed some of the literature. It's funny how parents think they get results like obedience and respect from striking their child, but as a daycare worker you're able to get a child (or children, as a matter of fact - like 12 at once) to be obedient and play nice and respect rules without ever having to do anything more severe than issue a time-out.
Anyway, I found a good reddit thread on the consensus of corporal punishment of children.
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hssng/is_there_any_scientific_consensus_on_the/
"subtextual's" posts in particular are very informative.
small quote:
"This question has been well-settled in the psychological literature. Corporal punishment is of very limited effectiveness in changing behavior (unless, as The_TWAT_Team noted, you are looking to increase lying, sneaking around, delinquency, or the use of aggression towards others). It is also associated with a whole host of negative effects."
|
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok.
|
On November 03 2011 08:13 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 07:50 grobo wrote:On November 03 2011 07:43 Zarak wrote:
In my opinion the people that think this is too rough had very easy parents. Most dads with their son if they did something wrong they would beat the shit out of them with their fist. She is just getting a brutal spanking with a belt. I do agree though the language should was very excessive and a dicipline should not be out of hate like it seems like he is feeling it should only be done out of love and for some people it takes a physical beating to get through to them.
Not trying to offend anyone here just my personal opinion Are you serious? what kind of uncivilized barbarian country are you coming from where it's considered normal for a father to use his fists to beat the shit out of their son? You guys are all missing the point. HE'S BEATING HER FOR USING THE INTERNET IN A TIME WHERE THE INTERNET IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF ENTERTAINING. She didn't watch porn or bad mouth anyone. It's not discipline it's abuse of power against his daughter.
Weird that "watching porn and badmouthing" are the two things in this world you think qualify a paddlin'
|
On November 03 2011 07:58 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 18:47 mskaa wrote:
Whats most shocking to me is that corporal punishment is allowed in the US and apparently some parts of Europe as well o.O
Man i really think this belongs in the 1960ies.. But telling children that they will go to hell and burn for eternity if they sin based on zero evidence isn't fucked up? I am genuinely confused. People get all shitty about something, but let major issues like generations of brainwashing continue. I understand this thread is about the video, but it seems to me that a lot of the people on here saying spanking is awful are probably, to some degree, the same people who believe in god.
Wow. What a load of crock that last statement is. You can safely assume that any poster from Sweden/Denmark/Norway is atheist, agnostic or very very mildly religious. (Edit: You can also safely assume all posters from these countries will be vehemently against physical punishment) I would love to say that not a single child in Scandinavia is told these things. But it would not be true. But there is no widespread religious indoctrination of children. Hell, there is barely a proper church to speak of left in Sweden. The buildings are still standing though. Barely.
Trust me. Not believing in god and not believing in physical punishment of children is what goes hand in hand. Not the other way around.
Edit: Quotidian: Someone called me religious. I could not stand for that and it was a separate issue I was not sure you would cover.
Also, "skimming the literature" seems to be good enough.
|
On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok.
Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise.
|
On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology.
Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular.
On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise.
Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied.
|
Any remotely skillfull parent wouldn't need to use things like this to keep children in line.
|
On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up.
Do you have any evidence to present to back your perspective that beating on a child is fine?
|
On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok.
While cursing at her and physically throwing her down. Mom even attempted somewhat to limit the beating, only to make the Dad more angry and rush off to get a 2nd belt so he could continue the way he wanted to.
If the punishment fits the crime why was she beaten for using the internet? Wouldn't a "fitting" punishment be to take away the internet? A "fitting" punishment of getting beaten would be fine if she beat some other person up. Not saying that hitting a child is EVER the right decision.
|
I feel so bad for all of you that were physically disciplined as children and are now adults that think there is nothing wrong with it. I can't even begin to type out an explanation of why. It's wrong on so many levels. There are reasons why it's mostly present in archaic or old fashioned family structures and cultures.
Saying "it works" as a way to modify behaviour is not justification and does not make it right.
If you have an extremely young person that cannot be communicated with effectively any other way, I could see why calm and purposeful physical discipline may be necessary.
In any other scenario, it's horrible parenting.
If your teenager does something you don't like, do you shoot them in the face or cut off their hand? No. It may stop them from doing it again, but it does a lot more to them than that. It's obviously not an appropriate way to modify the teenager's behaviour.
If your teenage does something you don't like, do you beat them with a belt and scream at them? It may stop them from doing it again, but it does a lot more to them than that. If you can't see how it's excessive and wrong I don't know what else to say.
|
|
|
So this has been viral for about a day, and has been covered by CNN, Forbes and many others. Well done internet.
"A Texas judge faces a police investigation and judicial probe after a video apparently showing him beating his then-16-year-old disabled daughter was posted on the Internet.
On Wednesday, Judge Adams and the district attorney agreed that the judge should be temporarily relieved of his duties and that a temporary replacement judge should take over his case while the matter is being investigated, Aransas County Administrative Judge Burt Mills told CNN."
|
I wish he did that to me, then I wouldn't be playing games so much.
|
It doesn't matter. This thread has proven that people would rather hang on flawed anecdotal evidence than going against their ridiculous views even if they are scientifically proven.
|
Ah that is what I am saying... Remove her Internet privileges. Ground her. Even give her a SINGLE smack. Don't beat the poor girl like she owes you money.
|
On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied.
The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong.
Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly.
Also please read the article generously posted below:
Thanks for posting this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
