Spanking Lowers IQ Points

[Randwolf]

Oh come on. Its just a tap on the cheek, the fleshy part of the face. How else are you going to deal with a child that swears at you? Or a toddler that bites?

Orly, I don't think you're wrong here, it depends on the context. You mentioned cursing, when I was young you would (literally) get your mouth washed out with soap for that.

I don't categorically rule out "slapping" the face, I was just trying to make it easier for John to understand.

The point is, there needs to be a distinction between "corporal correction" and "physical abuse". So many idiots here are incapable of, or pretend that they are incapable of, distinguishing the difference. My temper is rising, so perhaps I should take a break before I tell certain individuals exactly where I think they should be classified on the evolutionary tree.

Again, let's allow common sense to dictate here - OMG, what a silly request of SF.
:bugeye:

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Well, the technique that I described for dealing with a floor-pooper serves partly as a negative reinforcer.

I got my Australian Terrier as a puppy... an durin her house tranin she pooped on the floor twice... the firs time i saw her sniffin the pile... an wit-out a word i immediately took her outside to her normal poop area an tolt her to "hurry-up"... "hurry-up"... as i normally did a few minutes after she had eatin... an i left her out-side while i cleaned up the poop an used a special cleaner that woudnt leave a poop smell she coud notice an then brout her bak in as if nuthin "bad" had hapened... the second time she pooped in the floor was because me an my wife was talkin an didnt take her out side soom enuff after she had eaten... i said "NO" an i picked up the pup in mid-poop an took her outside an tolt her to "hurry-up"... "hurry-up".... she was alredy done poopin but i wanted to keep the consistencty of the poop routine... an while she was out side i cleaned up the poop an then brout her inside an she never pooped in the floor agan an i was mor carful to do my duty of gettin her outside soom enuff... that was especialy importent while she was still very young an not necesarly havin the bes control of her bowls yet.!!!

She was smart as coud be an was never hit... all trainin was positive reinforcement.!!!

I coud place a little box in the floor an she woud then go at full speed huntin for tennis balls i had hidden... an after she fount the 3rd one (the las 1) i woud give her a treet.!!!

I coud hide little peices of carrot aroun the room an she woud hunt for 'em based on my guidance... such as... she woud go to the area that i was pontin at... an if i said "no".... she woud move to a diferent area... an if i said "up" she woud get on her hind legs to look on top of the cardbord box ect... but wit those simple little comands i made up i coud direct her to any area an she responded immediatly... my favort trick she did was... i woud tell her "bak"... an she woud bak up in the yard or house as far as i wanted... an then i woud tell her to "com"... an she woud com a runnin like a bullet... but when i woud pont my fanger at her an shoout "bang"... she woud stop... turn in a circle an then flop down on her bak an lay still... until i said.... you'r oK... then she woud com a runnin for a treet an pats

 

[John99]

I was just trying to make it easier for John to understand.

gthooh!

 

[Randwolf]

He would nonetheless be correct if we needed to know what to teach children in school about using coporal punishment on their own kids. Although a scientist might not be skilled on dealing with particular children and their particular needs, he or she could tell us which regime of indoctrination is more associated with positive outcomes.

You're right, to an extent. Personally, I think the best approach would incorporate elements of both, combined perhaps with some "hands on baby sitting". Both approaches have their place, but neither should trump the other at the exclusion of finding the right answer.

Most people have something useful to contribute to a conversation, but they don't always choose to do so. Some get stubbornly backed into a corner and refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint other than their own.

I think the best answer lies in some sort of combination, take a bit from here and a bit from there, and when it comes to raising kids, do the best you can. I believe I stated something similar to this earlier in the thread. No one has all the perfect answers on this subject, or there would be no debate..

 

[jpappl]

You may be right. I mean, if I were to go on an air-boat expedition in the Florida swamps (teeming with alligators) or the Australian outback (teeming with God only knows what) I certainly wouldn't want a guide who had experience. They might be "biased"...

What do they have to offer after all, other than anecdotal tales? I think a well read scientist that has never left the bowels of his museum office would be a much better choice. After all, he can graph data points and show precisely why that alligator should not have been there when he was, and therefore could not possibly have removed your leg at the knee...

Yeah, sounds good to me....

:crazy: :roflmao:

Which is about the same as those here without kids trying to tell us who are raising them how to do it. "I read in a book somewhere"

Other experiences tells us somethings as well.

1, most of us have been spanked, not abused by our parents and we are fine.

2, we have seen examples of kids who are not spanked no matter what they do and turn out to be total spoiled brats who run the house, throw fits in the stores etc, get away with everything. No consequences learned, no boundaries.

3, we see examples of kids who are not spanked who are pretty well behaved, and kids who are spanked that are pretty well behaved.

4, we see kids that are spanked and still don't behave well.

My point being that each kid is unique and some will push the envelope more than others. There is no denying this is true.

That being said, it is also important to understand the age and what will work at that age.

I would never spank a baby or child who is to young to be able to communicate with where they understand what you are saying. That is abuse.

Spanking a 4 year old who decides he/she is going to push the boundary limit and see what happens is not abuse at all, and also should be the last response and therefore very rare. Meaning all other attempts have failed, the child is going to push the envelope and then will regret doing so.

Slapping a child in the face or even spanking as a reactive response etc is totally unacceptable and is not an attempt to discipline, it's an attempt to humiliate and embarass.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

Hehehe, if that works for you, Clueless dude! The second count still sounds like a negative reinforcer, though. The dog was put under stress by being carried frantically out the door. The stressor was removed when it was set on the ground. It's a gross, simple method of reinforcement, but it works.

I have a much higher-stress method than you do because I have a high-catecholamine personality (the development of my adrenal medulla perhaps far exceeds the development of my adrenal cortex), but my animals nevertheless turn out to be very bright, cooperative, energetic and versatile. After seven years, my parents' old black lab can still learn new variations on old tricks. Her face is more expressive than one you see on a human being, too. But the way I used to play rough with her, I am surprised I never broke any of her bones. I am much more mature now, though.

 

[Nasor]

You may be right. I mean, if I were to go on an air-boat expedition in the Florida swamps (teeming with alligators) or the Australian outback (teeming with God only knows what) I certainly wouldn't want a guide who had experience. They might be "biased"...

So you ask a scientist whether or not you should do X action while in the swamp, and he says "I've never been there myself, but I have a study showing that people who do X are 11% more likely to get eaten by alligators while in the swamp. So I would recommend against it."

Then Randwolf comes along, and says "Don't listen to him! I've actually been to the swamp, I did X, and I didn't get eaten by an alligator!" under the mistaken impression that his limited anecdotal experience somehow trumps statistics about the collective outcomes of many people's trips to the swamp, simply because the guy presenting the statistics has never been to the swamp himself.

 

[Randwolf]

gthooh!

Sorry John, just didn't want to get into the whole deal of "well, don't slap her so hard that her head spins like Linda Blair in the Exorcist, but, on the other hand, it might be OK for a light slap for biting, etc. Nothing personal, my fault, just trying to sidestep the issue.

My apologies...

 

[Randwolf]

So you ask a scientist whether or not you should do X action while in the swamp, and he says "I've never been there myself, but I have a study showing that people who do X are 11% more likely to get eaten by alligators while in the swamp. So I would recommend against it."

Then Randwolf comes along, and says "Don't listen to him! I've actually been to the swamp, I did X, and I didn't get eaten by an alligator!" under the mistaken impression that his limited anecdotal experience somehow trumps statistics about the collective outcomes of many people's trips to the swamp, simply because the guy presenting the statistics has never been to the swamp himself.

Chill dude! How did you miss my post #244:

You're right, to an extent. Personally, I think the best approach would incorporate elements of both, combined perhaps with some "hands on baby sitting". Both approaches have their place, but neither should trump the other at the exclusion of finding the right answer.

I am really big on scientific theory, and if forced to pick one over the other, it would be no contest. This doesn't mean that I do not listen to people that have actually experienced activity "x".

No one says anything "Trumps", and if one were to (at least if that one were me), I would say scientific studies, preferably double blind, repeated and peer-reviewed would come out on top every time.

So chill, dude!

 

[John99]

no problem. you would think i would be desensitizes by now.

anyway, i agree but a slap in the face leaves more of a psychological impression and like AC said, has more potential for physical damage.

now if someone bites you then the normal reaction is to slap them in the face, especially if they are still hanging on.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

Okay, so why don't we go with my idea, which is to take a "by prescription only" approach to corporal punishment. If a parent has been instructed on how to apply this form of direction correctly and effectively by a highly trained, thoroughly educated psychotherapist, then we should consider the parent or guardian to have the right to apply it as instructed. Under other circumstances, though, we should take a child very seriously if he or she complains about being abused or a sibling being abused by a parent or guardian. At the very least, it should warrent some serious investigation, for there are way too many parents out there who just hit their children to vent their spleen.

 

[Nasor]

Chill dude! How did you miss my post #244:

I am really big on scientific theory, and if forced to pick one over the other, it would be no contest. This doesn't mean that I do not listen to people that have actually experienced activity "x".

No one says anything "Trumps", and if one were to (at least if that one were me), I would say scientific studies, preferably double blind, repeated and peer-reviewed would come out on top every time.

So chill, dude!

So, wait...you say you prefer scientific data over anecdotal evidence, but you also think that people who haven't directly experienced something don't even have a right to comment on it? Which is it?

 

[Alien Cockroach]

So, wait...you say you prefer scientific data over anecdotal evidence, but you also think that people who haven't directly experienced something don't even have a right to comment on it? Which is it?

Both.

It is one thing to quote theory as you learned it by rote. However, if you have not had the real-life experience to understand why the theory holds true, then odds are much higher that you are misinterpreting or misapplying the data.

Those of us who have raised children and animals have been in enough situations with them to know what scientists mean when they say "abuse." Unfortunately, some of us have done it or been at the brink of doing it, and we feel kind of shitty about it if you want to know the truth. I have physical scars on my body, though, that remind me of WHY I should not be an ass. I was abusive with some of my animals because that is how my father taught me to deal with them. I had to learn for myself that he was wrong, as he was about so many things. There are times when striking an animal is a controversial form of punishment, and there are other times when you are a pathetic, needle-dicked asshole who thinks it is cool to vent his spleen on things that are too small and helpless yet to defend themselves. I can see the difference instantly. In one case, I might have to tighten my lips to keep my mouth shut, but I won't say anything. In the other, I will be on the phone with child services or the ASPCA immediately, and congratulations to you because you just became a star in a movie recorded on a cell phone.

When scientifically gathered data conflicts with your personal experiences, you should probably reconsider the way you have chosen to interpret your experiences. Maybe one day you will be the exception, but maybe one day you will win the state lottery.

If two people are using the same scientifically gathered information, though, then it is likely that the one who has had direct, personal experience with the subject matter being discussed has more authority on how to interpret it. This does not mean that a person with direct, personal experience with the subject matter is always right, but this person has a significant edge in knowing what the scientists were talking about when they published this information.

 

[Randwolf]

So, wait...you say you prefer scientific data over anecdotal evidence, but you also think that people who haven't directly experienced something don't even have a right to comment on it? Which is it?

Look, Nasor, not sure where the animosity is coming from, but I'm your Huckleberry.

I think both people have a right to comment. However, I don't think that either should claim absolute superiority. Is this a really tough concept for you?

One more time, slowly now...

Scientific studies, conducted properly, in a double blind situation, reproducible by others, are, IMHO, the best source of data.

Lacking that, which is often the case when the question involves humans, well... Statistical correlation, especially if causation can be inferred is the next most valuable.

Despite this position, I do not discount anecdotal evidence entirely. Do you? If so, I believe you are a fool. There is something to be said for those that have "been there, done that". Perhaps you are very young, or maybe we just got off on the wrong foot.

In either event, there is no contradiction in my posting:
1. Scientific evidence and studies, as outlined above.
2. Statistical correlation, especially in a situation inferring causation.
3. Anecdotal information.

All of these are of value, often the best "real life" conclusion can be had by combining all three.

Do you disagree with this statement?

Conversely, those lacking in real life experience (anecdotal info), statistical data (correlation / causation) and knowledge obtained via scientific studies - they have no right to comment, unless preceded by something along the lines of: "This is only my uninformed opinion, but.... "

Do you disagree with this statement?



If you do do disagree with either of the above, please do tell:

Why would anecdotes rank above statistics which would then apparently rank above rigorous scientific studies?

Why would someone lacking any of the above three qualifications have the right to comment, except to voice their uninformed opinions?

I anxiously await your reply...

 

[Nasor]

Look, Nasor, not sure where the animosity is coming from, but I'm your Huckleberry.

I think both people have a right to comment. However, I don't think that either should claim absolute superiority. Is this a really tough concept for you?

No, that position seems reasonable. But that opinion is in direct opposition to the opinion you expressed in post 218, where you said "What gives someone with no children the right to even comment?" and "I resent someone who has never even raised a child trying to tell actual parents what is best."

I can only assume that at some point between that comment and now you have reached some new insight into "what gives someone with no children the right to even comment."

 

[Randwolf]

No, that position seems reasonable. But that opinion is in direct opposition to the opinion you expressed in post 218, where you said "What gives someone with no children the right to even comment?" and "I resent someone who has never even raised a child trying to tell actual parents what is best."

I can only assume that at some point between that comment and now you have reached some new insight into "what gives someone with no children the right to even comment."

No, I believe his comments fall into the category of:

A. Scientific studies? Why no, my good fellow...
B. Statistical analysis? ermmmm, no?
C. Anecdotal knowledge then, surely? Well, no not really. A little second hand experience....

Get the idea?

That is why I feel he is out of line trying to impose opinions that he would like to pretend are "facts". "Facts" by no definition I am aware of, unless we have made a twilight transition into the religious forum...

Wait... Bet he would have a hard time supporting his viewpoint even there!

What are you Nasor, rescue the underdog or something?

 

[Orleander]

is it ok to use a weapon (belt, paddle, hair brush, ruler, etc) when you assault a child? Or does everyone just use their hand?

 

[shorty_37]

is it ok to use a weapon (belt, paddle, hair brush, ruler, etc) when you assault a child? Or does everyone just use their hand?

I have never "ASSAULTED" my children, but I am starting to feel the urge to ASSAULT you for being so stupid.

Are you sure you aren't married to Clueluss....

 

[jpappl]

is it ok to use a weapon (belt, paddle, hair brush, ruler, etc) when you assault a child? Or does everyone just use their hand?

I use a board with a bunch of tiny needles in it. The holes heal faster and nobody can tell I am torturing them, daily.

We have built a safe room where nobody can hear them scream.

If the spankings don't work we put them on the stretcher board, my kids are taller than average and have long arms and legs. They should thank me for that.



Seriously because it's not a laughing matter.

Assault is a crime of violence against another person

So is spanking a crime of violence ?

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent

So if you bump into someone at the store can they claim you assaulted them ?

If the child was warned they would be spanked if they did not obey, and CHOSE to not obey, they have given consent.

It was their choice.

 

[Orleander]

...So if you bump into someone at the store can they claim you assaulted them ?

If the child was warned they would be spanked if they did not obey, and CHOSE to not obey, they have given consent.

It was their choice.

if you are purposely bumping people, yes. If its an accident, no. Are you saying people accidentally assault their child?

And toddlers are notoriously bad decision makers. Teenagers as well. Assaulting them doesn't make them better decision makers. Brain growth helps, but assaulting them doesn't.