Home

Spanks for the Comment Pt. 2 “The Spanks Continue”

March 12, 2012

Hello all again it’s me the ol’ Dysu and if you’ll forgive a little personal indulgence I just wanna finish up some business real quick…

Well, hopefully within this last post because I got plenty of other fish in the bucket, as it were…

Ac, ac, ac, again I am not sure where to begin. I went and looked and tried to find more info. I checked yer info page, read a number of your other posts trying to make sure there wasn’t somehow more to your argument, such as you were raised in an abusive household, grew up poor and in a rough way anything re: your age, schooling, personal experiences. I did read that you have traveled around this “awesome ball”. That implies you are a world traveler (whether that is true or not is unclear at this point) but what that specifically means regarding helping me define who you are I don’t know…

But from your posts, and your reply I am going to assume a couple things, forgive me in advance if they are wrong, but I did attempt to find the information out.

Unlike yourself, ac who was given the opportunity to learn something about the person before they assumed anything, but did not take the opportunity, yet cast their assumptions anyway…(But have you ever wondered if the very fact that you consider violence acceptable, and even preferable, might be a sign of the damage which you suffered as a result of your own childhood?) Oh it is to laugh.  I’m pretty sure I’ve spelled out quite clearly the damages I suffered as a child and the resulting effect it’s had on my life but….plus ya wanna keep your arguments to things I have actually said.

Here’s a little bit about me, so that ya know before you speak…

I was raised in an abusive household, on a physical par a little above average for kids of my generation, but physical beatings are not the only kind of abuse children can suffer. I left home for the first time when I was thirteen and ran the streets pretty much on and off again till I was nearly twenty eight. So I understand abuse and the affects it can have on both children and the adult victims of said abuse.

Later in life I studied psychology, as many abuse victims do, and came very close (practicum classes) to becoming a licensed therapist on his way to bigger and better things (until I realized I like to talk more than listen). So indeed I understand in great detail, not just from a practical experience pov, but the theoretical applications as well…

I have worked in the social service field* we’ll get to that below

I have helped raise four children, (even was househusband for awhile)and have tried (lol) more than one parenting style. Determined of course, not to repeat my own childhood, (and from a psych pov yes over compensating) I may have been to lax on disciplining my own children (who are for the most part God Bless ’em pretty good human beings).

But again, then we are back to my original point and the point I feel you still have not addressed. You seem to want to claim that discipline is important, but you also seem to be suggesting that any “physical” discipline is akin to “beatings” and violence against children. You do this repeatedly, first in your original post, and now in your reply, the words violence and “beating” or “beaten” appear numerous times

Again I will repeat my earlier assertion that if what your saying is that adults should not “beat” their children, I think everyone reading this post is in agreement with you…calling your average swats on the butt to teach your persistent two year old that there are  consequences for going in the street “beatings”, that is what is debatable.

And this is where your logic is faulty, because one is true, does not make the other true. Because I swat my sixteen months old hand when she reaches for the stove does not mean I believe in beating my child (not something I ever did, but see the reasoning behind such things now, as my children enter adult lives lol)

Secondarily but equally as valid, is your logic issue regarding the outcome of said beatings. You seem to have a basic grasp of some rudimentary psychology, but it is, again, put to use in your argument in a way that is not only counter productive to your overall agenda, (having your readers agree with your assertion that hitting a child in any way shape or form is abuse) but unsupportable by actual facts.

You assert only the negative outcomes of such abuse on the adult victims. You state or imply, again both in your original post and your reply here to me, on numerous occasion about the long term effects of “violence” against children. But, even if I accept your original assertion that any form of physical discipline is akin to “violence”, than many of those who have suffered such “beatings” have gone on to do incredible things as adults. In fact you could almost say all of history (up until the modern “any physical discipline is abuse” years) has been founded on adults (including many great US Presidents)who have suffered such outrageous violence such as a “switching”.

But lets look at your argument one step further, even if  a child suffers terrible abuse at the hands of a parent (or any adult), there is no guaranteed outcome…just look at Oprah Winfrey….I could list numerous examples. I’m not saying abuse is good. Again what I’m saying is your logic is flawed, that’s all, because one thing is true, does not make the other true.

What I was trying to say, what I am still trying to say is make sure you have sound arguments and are definitive in your assertions.

After all this I am quite clear that you believe beating and violence against children is wrong, but I am still unclear whether you actually meananyphysical discipline is excessive, or ??

I mean I enjoy a good debate, it is one of the reasons I have chose to use this as a post instead of simply replying, but I like my opponents to come well armed as it were lol.

And here’s where I can help you. Where as I don’t believe in beating children. I do believe, have come to believe, and have seen evidence now on numerous occasion where some children deserve a good beating (*). Now that is obviously a topic you and I could debate, you bring yer facts to the table, I’ll bring mine…

If, again I will repeat myself to make sure my statement is clear, you just wanna say adults shouldn’t use capricious and unnecessary violence against children, I and every(sane)one else are on board.

But if you want to make the claim that all physical disciple is abuse, and that all abuse of children leads to violent adults (or even, less reasonable adults) the facts (not my facts but the facts) do not support your arguments and I will gladly debate them.

Lastly, like many young people, (one of the assumptions I am making that may be wrong[but I will be surprised if i am]) you assert on numerous occasions that it is this violence against children which teaches them to be violent, (not your fault, you haven’t been educated properly). That is why I called your theories ‘pop” psychology because it begins, is founded on the flawed premise that humans have to be taught to be violent, the facts do not support this theory and I am always surprised it still gets props in this day and age.

If you take two infants who have been raised by loving parents and place them in a room with one teddy bear(limited resources), a vicious fight is going to break out. So the express opposite is true, we have to teach babies not to resort to violence. And before you say it, the use of violence in this issue, from my perspective would be a capricious use of violence so…no, no rational thinking parents suggests using violence to teach nonviolence (though we (humans) use to (back in the days of yore) and it most cases that worked pretty good also, lol.

So lets review…

Are these things inherently intertwined or artificially associated

1. You assert physical disciple=violence\beatings.

2. You assert physical disciple=negative outcome.

3. You assert physical disciple=violent adults=recycled discipline= recycled violence

 

They are all a truth, but not necessarily the truth…get it.

So this is all I’m sayin, make sure yer arguments are cohesive, structured around sound logic and, hyperbole aside, factually founded, that’s all.

Lastly, lastly, when you believe corporations are out to get ya, the greedy rich are ruining the country, that alternative energies are plausible today, that 9-11 might be a conspiracy, and that babies are born as some perfect vessel (as compared to a living genetic being with it’s own blueprint and instincts for survival) of humanistic ideals well then ya’ seem kind’a like a hippie (a word coined by the American Beats meaning a little but hip). This is again my second assumption which I indeed am making in this post, only based on what I have read of your work, so forgive me again…

But you probably aren’t…you were just taught by one.  Anyway, I’m sure we pretty much can agree to disagree on most issues, but feel free to stop by anytime, perhaps we can discuss your limited, immature and somewhat ignorant views on slavery and racism…Oh it is to laugh.

I salute you sir!

 

 

 

One Response to “Spanks for the Comment Pt. 2 “The Spanks Continue””


  1. OK first let me clarify my use of the word ‘violence’ in the context of parenting.

    I am referring to the parent using physical force (or the threat of it) in place of reasoning and peaceful negotiation with the child. That physical force may include physical violence as a punishment (or the threat of violence to act as a deterrent). It could also refer to violence/ physical force used by the parent to impose his/ her will upon the child forcefully in the moment. Of course there is also the psychological component associated with these physical acts or threats (fear, pain, terror, abandonment, humiliation, anxiety, stress, confusion etc).

    As far as I can tell you support the use of this kind of violence on children and have used these kinds of parenting techniques yourself on occasion. In other words you support these parenting techniques and consider them preferable on occasion.

    You also admit that such violence was used on you and you’ve outlined some of the consequences it had on you.

    Therefore as far as I can tell my previous question (below) was a valid and fair one.

    “But have you ever wondered if the very fact that you consider violence acceptable, and even preferable, might be a sign of the damage which you suffered as a result of your own childhood?”

    It is an uncomfortable question, which I acknowledged when I asked it. I was not necessarily asking you to give me an answer. As I implied, it’s the type of question we all need to ask ourselves (in whatever variation). Everybody’s childhood is damaging in some way or another and to a greater or lesser extent. We all benefit from doing some repair work whether its formal therapy or DIY self analysis while out walking the dog. “Know thyself” is an essential mantra for living, whatever childhood we had. I hope we can at least agree on that.

    You said:

    “You seem to want to claim that discipline is important, but you also seem to be suggesting that any “physical” discipline is akin to “beatings” and violence against children. ”

    My argument is not so much about *how much* physical force constitutes unacceptable ‘violence’ as might be measured in ‘pounds per square inch’. I am saying it is the fundamentally *irrational* and *inconsistent* nature of this type of parenting which makes it so counter productive and damaging. The whole concept of ‘disciplining’ is a good example.

    For a start, I have problems with the very word ‘discipline’. Scientology cult members and Nazi stormtroopers are/ were examples well disciplined men. There is nothing automatically virtuous or preferable about being disciplined or having disciplined children or living in a disciplined society.

    The only discipline of any real worth is SELF discipline. Self discipline is self control (control over one’s own mind, over one’s own impulses, over one’s own behaviour etc). Self discipline is a wonderful and necessary thing – assuming we want to be happy, virtuous, fulfilled, civilised and free. Assuming we don’t want to be controlled by outside forces.

    Self discipline cannot (by definition) be imposed on an individual from outside, just as how you cannot (by definition) force someone to act voluntarily.

    To ‘discipline a child’ is to assert YOUR control over it. It is teaching the child to obey your commands. Whether the command is to rake leaves, tidy your room or kill next door’s cat is not the issue here. A child who will only tidy his room by obeying a command is (by definition) not self disciplined. A child who will not usually kill cats but will obey a command to kill a cat is also (by definition) not self disciplined. But in both cases the child is ‘disciplined’ though. The child is obedient, compliant, controllable.

    The fact that we are all brought up to associate ‘discipline’ (obedience) with carrying out virtuous deeds (raking leaves etc) does not mean that there is anything is inherently virtuous about ‘discipline’ (obedience), anymore than there is anything inherently evil about it either.

    ‘Disciplining’ a child is (by definition) a form of mind control, behaviour control, like training animals at the circus – ‘physical discipline’ even more so. Discipline imposed from outside actually deprives the child of opportunities to develop self discipline, because self discipline can only work when the motivation comes from within the child, which simply can’t happen when it is being imposed on the child from the outside.

    Training a child to always look for external cues for the discipline which should be coming from the self is one of the most deleterious things we can do to children. It teaches them to be dependent on the hierarchy, on peer pressure, on dogma, on social cues, authority and so on. (which is why discipline is such a big part of brainwashing cults and authoritarian regimes).

    Self discipline can of course be *encouraged* from outside, through negotiation and particularly through setting an example by being self disciplined as a parent (remember, small children learn mostly through copying the behaviour of others around them), but self discipline cannot be imposed by force.

    And so the tragic irony is that when a parent gives up using reason, encouragement and peaceful negotiation and instead, (out of despair) resorts to trying to impose ‘discipline’ in the child by force from outside (AKA ‘disciplining’), the parent is in fact demonstrating their own lack of self discipline to the child.

    It is this kind of contradiction (which most parents are probably never even aware of) which makes this kind of parenting far more problematic and downright disastrous than it ever need be.

    Children are not naturally irrational, they are simply born temporarily undeveloped and thus dependent on us for a while. It is WE who imprint our irrationality on THEM during their early years. Then when they start to reflect our own irrationality back at us (how could they possibly not?) we find it incredibly inconvenient and out of frustration we end up using more and more irrational techniques of violence and ‘disciplining’. This of course only makes matters worse by setting up a feedback cycle.

    A baby with Ugandan parents learns to speaks Ugandan. A baby with Germany parents learns to speak German. A baby brought up by wolves learns to walk on all fours and growl at strangers. There’s a fairly well proven input – output dynamic going on here.

    So what about a baby brought up by inconsistent, irrational, violent parents, lacking in self discipline and unwilling to use peaceful negotiation, encouragement and setting an example?

    Obviously the baby is going to end up mimicking/ reflecting all of this as it develops. Hitting the child will just intensify and speed the process. Increase the feedback loop.

    It’s like speaking German in front of your baby and then berating it (in German) for speaking German. And then hitting it as it continues to speak German while you continue to yell and shout at it in German.

    This kind of irrational and violent parenting, will cause suffering and scientific studies show that these abused children will end up suffering measurable brain damage (impaired and abnormal brain development) as clearly shown in the video I linked in my last comment on your previous post here.

    Unless you can provide any better scientific evidence to the contrary I think we can confidently conclude for now that irrational, violent parenting is not only unnecessary and counter productive but that it is actually harmful to the child. It is not how we are born, it is how we are broken.

    As someone with an interest in psychology who suffered violent childhood I can’t recommend enough watching all four videos in that series, if you haven’t already.

    You said:

    “…. your average swats on the butt to teach your persistent two year old that there are consequences for going in the street…”

    If a two year old is going in the street then you have failed as a parent to protect them properly. Either you have momentarily neglected your duties as carer or someone or something beyond your control prevented you from caring for you two year old (shit happens, I’m not saying parents must be superhuman).

    But in either case IT’S NOT THE CHILD’S FAULT. If you punish the child you’re telling it that it is to blame. It may not exactly qualify as ‘abuse’ but it is certainly confusing and unproductive. Why not just explain to the child what just happened and why you are so concerned about what could have happened? IOW why not just be *truthful* and *reasonable* to the child?

    “…Because I swat my sixteen months old hand when she reaches for the stove does not mean I believe in beating my child…”

    Same thing applies. Is there boiling water on the stove? If so why is she being placed in danger? If the ‘swatting’ is a last second attempt to prevent an accident then you are protecting the child from harm (at the very last second, which is a risky way to parent).

    “…having your readers agree with your assertion that hitting a child in any way shape or form is abuse…..”

    It’s not my assertion. It’s scientifically proven. I invite you to study the data etc.

    “..You assert only the negative outcomes of such abuse on the adult victims…many of those who have suffered such “beatings” have gone on to do incredible things as adults….. ”

    The strength of the human to overcome adversity is indeed something to celebrate. However if the science, overwhelming anecdotal evidence and common sense tell us that beating our children is:

    – damaging their brains
    – causing them distress in the moment
    – laying down damage which will affect them for life and which they’ll have to spend an enormous amount of time and energy (and perhaps money) trying to sort out when they are older
    – statistically shortening their lifespan and giving them an increased chance of suffering from depression, addiction, anxiety, anger, violent tendencies etc
    – completely counter productive anyway
    – etc

    Does this mean it is a good idea to carry on the beating in the hope that they’ll survive the damage and against all odds go on to ‘do incredible things’?

    Have you considered the possibility that without damaging them (ie peaceful, consistent, rational parenting) they might be able to go on and do even more incredible things?

    “…. even if a child suffers terrible abuse at the hands of a parent (or any adult), there is no guaranteed outcome….”

    There is a guaranteed outcome, scientifically speaking, in terms of the damage which terrible abuse produces. It damages the brain for a start. The ability, good fortune and support to overcome or compensate for the damage caused is more of a matter of chance yes, I agree.

    “…. I’m not saying abuse is good…”

    So what are you saying? …. that we should abuse our children anyway? After all, we had to put up with it and it sure fucked up our lives – why should they get off without a taste of what we had to put up with? Is that what you’re saying?

    FWIW I went though a phase of thinking suffering was somehow necessary to become a real human being, but I’m over it now! 😉

    These days I make a distinction between suffering and hardship. Suffering is abuse which is just poisonous and toxic (like child abuse) and is a no, no… hardship is anything which is grounding and arduous and requires resourcefulness and which is potentially inspiring, humbling and enriching (like mountain survival).

    Being damaged is not the same as being humbled. It’s an important distinction I feel.

    “…what I’m saying is your logic is flawed, that’s all, because one thing is true, does not make the other true…”

    I don’t think my logic is flawed. There are no redeeming features as far as abusive parenting is concerned, not in the moment and not in the future. It does no good – it does harm. It causes measurable damage to the brain, and brain damage is widely assumed to suck big time. Some people cope better than others, some people get more support, some people are more clever at compensating or hiding the damage done to them as a child. Some might win the lottery and that will make life easier. Some might have a talent which helps them to get a decent career and earn lots of money and respect.

    But none of the above are good reasons to damage your children’s brains and shit on their future prospects. That is my logic.

    “…Where as I don’t believe in beating children. I do believe, have come to believe, and have seen evidence now on numerous occasion where some children deserve a good beating..”

    This is too vague for me to argue. You’d need to provide a breakdown of the ‘crime’ and the child’s complete history and circumstances. When children (usually older children) commit serious crimes there are ALWAYS underlying causes or triggers trauma, abuse, neglect, death in the family, resurfacing memories of abuse etc.

    Also I am really focusing on causes here, and you are talking about effects. Understanding the causes leads to prevention. Fixating on effects leads nowhere.

    ‘Problem children’ are like the crashed airplanes in Aircrash Investigations. You advocate beating the wreckage with your belt. I’m saying it’s more productive to find the root cause of the crash and try and learn from our mistakes. Implement better procedures and standards. If you really must beat someone beat the parents for god’s sake!

    “… just wanna say adults shouldn’t use capricious and unnecessary violence against children, I and every(sane)one else are on board…..”

    As I have explained there really is no such thing as ‘necessary violence’. It’s like ‘necessary road wax’ or ‘necessary rape’. The necessary amount is …… NONE!

    I can’t put it any more simply than this: violence causes bad behaviour therefore it can’t ever be argued to be an effective deterrent against bad behaviour.

    It’s like drinking seawater to stave off dehydration. It might seem logical enough but it’s actually counter productive.

    I must re-emphasize, this has got NOTHING to do with pandering to the child or being soft. It’s just basic flawed thinking, which just happens to be contrary to what we were all taught to believe that’s all. But hey, that’s evolution for you…..

    Science often comes up with stuff which seems at first to be counter intuitive until after a few generations we laugh at the people who once believed it. The earth is in fact round … No, it cant be true! A fly and a car windshield actually exert equal and opposite forces against each other… No, it cant be true! Violence against children doesn’t make them behave better at all – it damages their brain development by permanently reducing their capacity for reasoning while over stimulating the fight or flight response at the same time … No, it cant be true!

    “….If you take two infants who have been raised by loving parents and place them in a room with one teddy bear(limited resources), a vicious fight is going to break out…..”

    A vicious fight? Evidence, scientific studies please? (and you accuse me of pop psychology???)

    1. You assert physical disciple=violence\beatings.
    1. Best to refer to what I wrote about discipline above

    2. You assert physical disciple=negative outcome.
    2. Yes. (as before refer above)

    3. You assert physical disciple=violent adults=recycled discipline= recycled violence
    3. That’s an over simplification. Violent abusive parenting is counter productive and causes damage (see scientific evidence). Damage may be expressed in numerous ways. Perhaps violence and an authoritarian personality or perhaps anxiety and a subservient personality (two sides of the same coin). See studies for more info on the effects. All of them are negative though.

    “….They are all a truth, but not necessarily the truth…get it…”

    No. What is your point?

    Not everyone who smokes dies of lung cancer. This would not be a good argument for making babies smoke because smoking is always harmful and does often cause lung cancer (but not always).

    You seem to be saying that not knowing exactly how much you will damage your child or how well they will cope is a good reason to be violent towards it.

    “Lastly, lastly, when you believe …”

    I do not ‘believe’ anything. Belief for most people means to rely on some authority (priests, TV, teachers) to supply their beliefs. I am only interested in EVIDENCE. If you want to debate evidence on any of those subjects then you would have to be more specific.

    “…9-11 might be a conspiracy….”

    I know full well you’re a 9/11 a conspiracy theorist – even if you don’t understand that you are.

    “conspiracy
    noun
    a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful…”

    If you can explain why a theory about 19 men conspiring to fly planes into buildings ISN’T a conspiracy theory I’d like to hear it!

    Or perhaps government/ media sanctioned conspiracy theories are exempt from being called conspiracy theories?

    Sounds a bit like how when we inflict violence towards children it doesn’t count as real violence (the way it would if we hit an adult). Instead it’s called ‘disciplining’ instead of ‘assault’ so we can be sure of the difference.

    Hey, while we’ve got the dictionary out let’s look at my original definition of ‘violence’ in the context of parenting.

    – use of physical force (or the threat of it) in place of reasoning and peaceful negotiation with the child.
    – may include physical violence as a punishment (or the threat of violence to act as a deterrent).
    – It could also refer to violence/ physical force used by the parent to impose his/ her will upon the child forcefully in the moment.
    – the psychological component associated with these physical acts or threats (fear, pain, terror, abandonment, humiliation, anxiety, stress, confusion etc).

    Now let’s look up terrorism.

    ter·ror·ism
    noun
    1.
    the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
    2.
    the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

    So I guess you could say I oppose the use of terrorism on small children, morally (it’s completely unacceptable), practically (it doesn’t work) and scientifically (it harms the child).

    And with that, I rest my case.

    “…Anyway, I’m sure we pretty much can agree to disagree on most issues, but feel free to stop by anytime…”

    Likewise… I disagree with (just about) everything you say, but hey, at least it makes for a decent argument which is what blogging should be about at least half the time.

    So thanks for a stimulating debate – I don’t drink myself but have a virtual beer on me anyway 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

sadisticpretzel

Like Shakespeare but with more profanity

Musings From a Ragged Soul

Seeking happiness one step at a time

Sparkonit

Science - Simplified

kelzbelzphotography

My journey - The good, bad and the ugly

Writings of a Mrs Mommy

Writings of a Mrs. Mommy is the Mommy blog to my Writings of a Mrs's blog. This blog will be more about my busy life with 8 children and the many adventures on how the Mrs. and Mr. manage it all! Humor, stress, love, food and photos will be the main focus. Alex and Jenn plus kids make TEN!

Game4Learning

Fun Learning Resouces for Kids

The Benevolent Couch Potato

My life with popular fictitious characters

The Matt Walsh Blog

Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips)

poemsoftheinnerspark

Books For Sale

muags

Just words

Undefined Thoughts

Well, that came outta left field.....

janyceresh

If sarcasm and self deprecating humour were an Olympic event I'd definitely qualify.

Trent Lewin

Fiction, and other made-up stories

Why are you so AWESOME and I SUCK?!

I have struggled to be famous for over a decade. I have learned talent and hard-work are not key factors. This blog is dedicated to my pursuit in figuring out what it takes… to be famous.

%d bloggers like this: