Texas Judge Beats Disabled Daughter on Video

override367

zepherin wrote:

Lilnoobs wrote:

This seems applicable

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/world/sweden-punishment-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

"corporal punishment isn't going away, and some researchers argue that it shouldn't. It's effective for gaining immediate compliance from young children, and is unlikely to have long-term negative effects,"

I agree (to a small extent) with that statement, and to a great extent that there are circumstances where it's a good option. You're really cherrypicking there though

A better would would be this

Robert Larzelere, a professor at Oklahoma State University's Department of Human Development and Family Science, said he recommends parents take classes to learn different methods to discipline their kids. Reasoning with kids is great, he said, and "time out" can be a useful tool. But he doesn't want all parents -- or regulations - to rule out a calm, "non-abusive spank" for kids ages 2 to 6.

Spanking young children as a backup to "time out" or reasoning can reduce aggression and noncompliance, he said. But physical punishment shouldn't be rooted in a parent's anger or frustration, he said, and should be phased out as kids get older.

Which echos my sentiments, the bolded is the important part

zepherin

*

override367 wrote:

Robert Larzelere, a professor at Oklahoma State University's Department of Human Development and Family Science, said he recommends parents take classes to learn different methods to discipline their kids. Reasoning with kids is great, he said, and "time out" can be a useful tool. But he doesn't want all parents -- or regulations - to rule out a calm, "non-abusive spank" for kids ages 2 to 6.

Spanking young children as a backup to "time out" or reasoning can reduce aggression and noncompliance, he said. But physical punishment shouldn't be rooted in a parent's anger or frustration, he said, and should be phased out as kids get older.

Which echos my sentiments, the bolded is the important part

*magic hands in an elevated position*

Lilnoobs

Doesn't that cnn article demonstrate that it's possible to raise children without hitting them? An entire generation of children?

Then, why would any sane person argue that we should hit children when it's perfectly realistic to raise children without hitting them?

zepherin

Lilnoobs wrote:

Doesn't that cnn article demonstrate that it's possible to raise children without hitting them? An entire generation of children?

Then, why would any sane person argue that we should hit children when it's perfectly realistic to raise children without hitting them?

You can raise kids without hitting them, hitting them just happens to be more effective in the instances stated above. Optimal path and all that jazz.

Lilnoobs

How is it more effective? Are somehow the now grown children of Sweden worse off than children who were hit?

Or did you misspeak and mean to say "lazy", it happens to be the lazy path of parenting?

zepherin

Lilnoobs wrote:

How is it more effective? Are somehow the now grown children of Sweden worse off than children who were hit?

Or did you misspeak and mean to say "lazy", it happens to be the lazy path of parenting?

Please try to read it this time.

override367 wrote:

zepherin wrote:

Lilnoobs wrote:

This seems applicable

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/world/sweden-punishment-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

"corporal punishment isn't going away, and some researchers argue that it shouldn't. It's effective for gaining immediate compliance from young children, and is unlikely to have long-term negative effects,"

I agree (to a small extent) with that statement, and to a great extent that there are circumstances where it's a good option. You're really cherrypicking there though

A better would would be this

Robert Larzelere, a professor at Oklahoma State University's Department of Human Development and Family Science, said he recommends parents take classes to learn different methods to discipline their kids. Reasoning with kids is great, he said, and "time out" can be a useful tool. But he doesn't want all parents -- or regulations - to rule out a calm, "non-abusive spank" for kids ages 2 to 6.

Spanking young children as a backup to "time out" or reasoning can reduce aggression and noncompliance, he said. But physical punishment shouldn't be rooted in a parent's anger or frustration, he said, and should be phased out as kids get older.

Which echos my sentiments, the bolded is the important part

Jars

Bagginses

Tastyfish wrote:

override367 wrote:

The_Spaniard wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

The_Spaniard wrote:

elkatas wrote:

The_Spaniard wrote:

Actually fear of the dark is one of those born in fears too.

So far I know from neuroscience, it isn't. I don't know how they measured it, but that's the official party line currently. Still, from practical standpoint point is moot, because everyone learns to fear it very quickly, and then grow out from it.

Actually I recently saw this 1-2 hour special on one of those Discovery/History/Science channels that was entirely about humanities fear of the dark and how it being born into us is what protected us early in our evolutionary history. I don't remember if they said we started with it, or developed it quickly, but from one point on as a species it was a part of us from birth passed down.

The dark is kind of a tabula rasa of fears. No matter what you're scared of, it could be hiding in that shadow.

Bingo.

What if you're afraid of bioluminescent spiders

There's a shop in the dark that sells them cloaks.


And also knives.

Actually, they're just hiding



on your back.

Yar

zepherin wrote:

"corporal punishment isn't going away, and some researchers argue that it shouldn't. It's effective for gaining immediate compliance from young children, and is unlikely to have long-term negative effects,"

You can't throw out soundbites from the media about what someone claims that researchers say in an attempt to pass that off as empirical evidence. I can translate the above quote for you, because I am familiar with what they are referring to:

1) One study did show that spanking is effective at immediate compliance, for certain age groups, at the expense of long-term improvement in behavior. I'm not disputing that. It's not as if spanking has zero effectiveness. The study did not conclusively show that spanking was any more effective than timeouts in immediate compliance, and did show that timeouts were more effective long-term. It is disingenuous but technically accurate to say that this study showed spanking to be "effective" at immediate compliance.

2) The scientific body of evidence is vast and unanimous in showing that spanking, in any frequency or intensity, correlates to increased risk of long-term negative effects over other methods, with no demonstrable benefit over certain other more effective methods. Studies which spearate out and address the most infrequent and lowest intensity spanking, though, generally show only a small correlation, sometimes significant and sometimes even an insignificantly small one. Which, if you are again intent on being entirely disingenuous about it, does in fact mean that as far as we can tell, it is unlikely to have long-term negative effects. "Unlikely" there means "significantly more likely than other non-violent and more effective discipline methods, but, you know, less than 50% likely, and therefore technically 'unlikely.'" If there were studies showing the benefits of spanking over other methods, then there might be some rational to saying that it is "unlikely" to cause long-term harm. But since no one has ever shown a single benefit to it, then the fact that it is of significantly increased risk of harm is more meaningful than the fact that technically it can be still "unlikely" to cause harm.

You can drive a car shit-faced drunk and are "unlikely" to get in an accident. That's a dishonest way of explaining the significantly increased risk you take driving drunk despite that even drunk drivers make it home safe at least 50% of the time.

Also, you claim to have cited scientific studies, but I can't find them. Can you post again?

override367 wrote:

Robert Larzelere, a professor at Oklahoma State University's Department of Human Development and Family Science, said he recommends parents take classes to learn different methods to discipline their kids. Reasoning with kids is great, he said, and "time out" can be a useful tool. But he doesn't want all parents -- or regulations - to rule out a calm, "non-abusive spank" for kids ages 2 to 6.

Spanking young children as a backup to "time out" or reasoning can reduce aggression and noncompliance, he said. But physical punishment shouldn't be rooted in a parent's anger or frustration, he said, and should be phased out as kids get older.

Which echos my sentiments, the bolded is the important part

Larzelere is demonstrably dishonest on this topic. The study he's referring to showed that spanking as a backup to timeout can reduce aggression and non-compliance, compared to doing nothing at all, but clearly was NOT any more effective at this than the alternative, non-violent method that it was being compared to in the study.

Seriously, it was a clinical trial that observed 1) putting a kid in a chair-timeout and then performing no further discipline if he got up and continued misbeaving, 2) putting a kid in a chair-timeout and then spanking him if he got up and continued misbehaving, and 3) putting them in a chair-timeout and then moving them to a room-timeout if they got up and continued misbehaving. And guess what? There was a clear and significant ranking order of effectiveness: 3, 2, 1. Larzelere frequently cites this study as proof that spanking is effective as a backup to timeouts, and always leaves out the part about how the entire point and conclusion of that study was actually just the opposite - it clearly showed that a tiered timeout with no spanking was at least as effective, if not moreso, than timeouts and spanking.

Later studies showed that certain other methods, like I think forcefully holding the child in the timeout chair, were even less effective than spanking. I can believe that, sure. There still remains no evidence at all that there is a reason to spank.

When you compare spanking to no discipline at all, spanking generally is still more likely to cause long-term damage, but is also more effective. More effective than no discipline at all, yes. When you compare spanking to things like timeouts and removing privileges, it is still more likely to cause long-term damage, but spanking is also usually less effective and never more effective. CP proponents like to make statements on the former to confuse the actual results of empirical study.

zepherin wrote:

You can raise kids without hitting them, hitting them just happens to be more effective in the instances stated above. Optimal path and all that jazz.

Wrong, it has never been shown to be optimal at anything. It is more effective than doing nothing. Period.

EDIT: The original study showed room timeouts without spanking as clearly the most effective, moreso than spanking. Follow-up studies failed to show a significant difference in effectiveness between spanking and room timeouts, so I adjusted what I wrote. Interestingly, the follow-up studies also showed that over time, the differences faded among all groups and the simple chair timeout, regardless of how it was enforced or if it was enforced at all, proved effective. The main determining factor in behavior change was whether or not the child fought the timeout, and over time, they all got used to it and stopped fighting it. That actually makes a lot of sense. Discipline is most significant over time, not instantly, and over time a simple timeout, used consistently, is effective enough to drown out the significance of how nazi you are being in enforcing it with holds or spanks or more severe timeouts. Eventually the kid learns the lesson well enough just knowing that he might have to sit in a chair for a bit. Supernanny's "Naughty Chair" is as effective as it appears. Even when it isn't, you're going to be at least as successful upping the timeouts as you are spanking, but without all the risks of harm that so many other studies have shown.

Bagginses

Heh, Oklahoma.

zepherin

Yar wrote:

EDIT: The original study showed room timeouts without spanking as clearly the most effective, moreso than spanking. Follow-up studies failed to show a significant difference in effectiveness between spanking and room timeouts, so I adjusted what I wrote. Interestingly, the follow-up studies also showed that over time, the differences faded among all groups and the simple chair timeout, regardless of how it was enforced or if it was enforced at all, proved effective. The main determining factor in behavior change was whether or not the child fought the timeout, and over time, they all got used to it and stopped fighting it. That actually makes a lot of sense. Discipline is most significant over time, not instantly, and over time a simple timeout, used consistently, is effective enough to drown out the significance of how nazi you are being in enforcing it with holds or spanks or more severe timeouts. Eventually the kid learns the lesson well enough just knowing that he might have to sit in a chair for a bit. Supernanny's "Naughty Chair" is as effective as it appears. Even when it isn't, you're going to be at least as successful upping the timeouts as you are spanking, but without all the risks of harm that so many other studies have shown.

This is the first study linked by you, and the only evidence you have presented. Reasonable conclusion, sample size is too small to be of any use. 600 people is the minimum amount of people for a study of this nature.

Yar wrote:

The scientific body of evidence is vast and unanimous in showing that spanking, in any frequency or intensity, correlates to increased risk of long-term negative effects over other methods

[citation needed]

redx

600 people is the minimum amount of people for a study of this nature.

What are you basing this claim on?

Skoal Cat

I can't even imagine these studies would pass ethic boards.
"See, what we're going to do is take five thousand children. We're going to hit half of them as punishment, and the other half we're going to punish without hitting them."
"You're going to hit 2,500 kids?"
"Its for science."

Paladin

You could get away with a lot of horrible stuff before 1974

taliosfalcon

Skoal Cat wrote:

I can't even imagine these studies would pass ethic boards.
"See, what we're going to do is take five thousand children. We're going to hit half of them as punishment, and the other half we're going to punish without hitting them."
"You're going to hit 2,500 kids?"
"Its for science."

Up until a very few years ago the statement would have been more along the lines of
"We're going to punish half of them as we've been doing all throughout recorded history and not hit the other ones" which sounds rather more palatable.

Skoal Cat

Has parenting styles been recorded through the ages?

zepherin

redx wrote:

600 people is the minimum amount of people for a study of this nature.

What are you basing this claim on?

60,000,000 children 14 and under. %95 interval, Confidence Interval 4. Although applying percentages to a subjective study might be fruitless, still 18 people is too small of a sample size for anything.

Lilnoobs

zepherin wrote:

Yar wrote:

EDIT: The original study showed room timeouts without spanking as clearly the most effective, moreso than spanking. Follow-up studies failed to show a significant difference in effectiveness between spanking and room timeouts, so I adjusted what I wrote. Interestingly, the follow-up studies also showed that over time, the differences faded among all groups and the simple chair timeout, regardless of how it was enforced or if it was enforced at all, proved effective. The main determining factor in behavior change was whether or not the child fought the timeout, and over time, they all got used to it and stopped fighting it. That actually makes a lot of sense. Discipline is most significant over time, not instantly, and over time a simple timeout, used consistently, is effective enough to drown out the significance of how nazi you are being in enforcing it with holds or spanks or more severe timeouts. Eventually the kid learns the lesson well enough just knowing that he might have to sit in a chair for a bit. Supernanny's "Naughty Chair" is as effective as it appears. Even when it isn't, you're going to be at least as successful upping the timeouts as you are spanking, but without all the risks of harm that so many other studies have shown.

This is the first study linked by you, and the only evidence you have presented. Reasonable conclusion, sample size is too small to be of any use. 600 people is the minimum amount of people for a study of this nature.

Yar wrote:

The scientific body of evidence is vast and unanimous in showing that spanking, in any frequency or intensity, correlates to increased risk of long-term negative effects over other methods

[citation needed]

Turn to page 15 and welcome to the conversation.

zepherin

Lilnoobs wrote:

Turn to page 15 and welcome to the conversation.

While 2 of those studies were garbage, one of them was legitimate and controlled for proper socioeconomic variables. I shall think on this.

Drez

For the sake of argument, let us assume for the moment (a) that spanking (to some degree) can be effective and (b) that spanking (to that same degree) will have no long lasting effects - psychological trauma, physical damage, or whatever else.

So what?

Just because something is effective and doesn't cause permanent damage doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

I mean, I don't agree that it has no long lasting effect, but even if it doesn't, so what? I think that is the wrong battleground for this debate. If we shouldn't hit each other as adults, I don't see how hitting our children in any circumstance to any degree is any better. And it seems to me that children should be afforded more leniency and protection than your average adult.

Can someone, such as zepherin, please explain to me why "effective" justifies violent contact against a child? Because all I've seen is a lot of bleating about "prove to me it causes long term harm!" How about we dispense with that and just discuss why striking a child is an acceptable action even if it is effective. Please explain to me why even a little, temporary harm is okay. I'd like to understand where and how you draw the line of acceptable painful physical contact. Because whether or not it causes long term harm doesn't seem to be a very good measure of that to me. There are lots of harmful but effective things we can all do to one another that won't really have long term or permanent harm, and we shouldn't do those things either.

zepherin

Drez wrote:

Can someone, such as zepherin, please explain to me why "effective" justifies violent contact against a child? Because all I've seen is a lot of bleating about "prove to me it causes long term harm!" How about we dispense with that and just discuss why striking a child is an acceptable action even if it is effective. Please explain to me why even a little, temporary harm is okay. I'd like to understand where and how you draw the line of acceptable painful physical contact.

Don't bring me into this I've started rethinking my original preconceived notions based on data gleamed from a convincing study.

TheOrange

My dad only beat me once, and it was brutal but oddly enough, he wasn't angry. I was 14, and just understood that I'm stronger then my 16 year old sister, so when we had a bit of a fight, i pushed her violently out of my room and she fell on her back, she cried and ran. 3 minutes later, my dad is standing in my room, throwing me from wall to wall, and finally, when I'm on my back he put his feet on my chest, all that with a calm face. Then he left.

I guess the moral he tried to convay here is that "hey, kid, this isn't a jungle, we don't operate on a bases of who's stronger". That said, this is an extremly anecdotal event and isn't something I'd use to advocate physical punishment.

In my country, teachers are able to hit you a lot, and they always use that long wooden ruler with an iron edge; god damn ruleres. But if punishment must be dealt, I'd rather a teacher hit my son then I do, a teacher will only be in a kid's life for a year, which I assume will lower its long term effects.

Edit: Ok, when I reread my post, I kinda remembered the exact times I got hit at school and I feel wronged by most of them, scratch my previous position on hitting in school. Because honestly, they wouldn't bother making sure who did what ever crime they want to strike someone over, they'd hit the couple of kids that were close too.

mythago

TheOrange wrote:

In my country, teachers are able to hit you a lot, and they always use that long wooden ruler with an iron edge; god damn ruleres. But if punishment must be dealt, I'd rather a teacher hit my son then I do, a teacher will only be in a kid's life for a year, which I assume will lower its long term effects.

Edit: Ok, when I reread my post, I kinda remembered the exact times I got hit at school and I feel wronged by most of them, scratch my previous position on hitting in school. Because honestly, they wouldn't bother making sure who did what ever crime they want to strike someone over, they'd hit the couple of kids that were close too.

Also, jesus fuck, do you really want to teach your kids "it's OK for a stranger to beat you as long as they're a temporary fixture in your life"?

One thing I suspect a lot of parents don't consider in corporal punishment is that there's a pretty decent chance your kids will eventually be bigger than you, and there's a 100% chance that at some point they will be younger and more vigorous than you. If you rely on corporal punishment for discipline their whole childhood, what are you going to do if they figure out they can kick your ass?

Fencingsax

http://www.freep.com/article/20111110/NEWS15/111110056/Michigan-House-OKs-anti-bullying-bill-without-ifs-buts?odyssey=nav|head

So apparently some parts of Michigan aren't moronic assholes. Hurrah.

Paladin

Is it more or less okay for a kid to hit a kid than an adult to hit a kid or a kid to hit an adult

Incenjucar

Paladin wrote:

Is it more or less okay for a kid to hit a kid than an adult to hit a kid or a kid to hit an adult

It's never at all okay.

It's less dangerous for a weaker person to strike a stronger person, up until the point where the stronger person snaps.

The only time people should ever be hitting each other is if they're sparring under agreed-upon conditions.

Paladin

Incenjucar wrote:

Paladin wrote:

Is it more or less okay for a kid to hit a kid than an adult to hit a kid or a kid to hit an adult

It's never at all okay.

It's less dangerous for a weaker person to strike a stronger person, up until the point where the stronger person snaps.

The only time people should ever be hitting each other is if they're sparring under agreed-upon conditions.

Then there is no moral line where violence is concerned between kids and adults

mythago

Fencingsax wrote:

http://www.freep.com/article/20111110/NEWS15/111110056/Michigan-House-OKs-anti-bullying-bill-without-ifs-buts?odyssey=nav|head

So apparently some parts of Michigan aren't moronic assholes. Hurrah.

Like most states, Michigan has large non-asshole urban clusters and a lot of rural/traditional assholery.

Incenjucar

Paladin wrote:

Then there is no moral line where violence is concerned between kids and adults

The only valid purpose of actual violence is to defend from actual violence. Your age only matters in whether or not you're capable of comprehending your actions.

Paladin

Incenjucar wrote:

Paladin wrote:

Then there is no moral line where violence is concerned between kids and adults

The only valid purpose of actual violence is to defend from actual violence. Your age only matters in whether or not you're capable of comprehending your actions.

So is a kid more morally justified than an adult in hitting another adult simply because the kid is expected to have less developed moral standards? Like, if you had to rate them

Lilnoobs

It sounds like the act and the comprehension of the act are two different strands that are independent of each other.

Darkewolfe

What's actually going on with the judge and daughter these days? There hasn't been anything about them in pages, just the same old corporal punishment argument we've had a thousand times on these boards.

mythago

He is in a custody battle with his ex-wife over their other daughter (who is 10) and has been barred from unsupervised visitation.

[Link fixed]

TheOrange

Your link kinda leads to itself....and could destroy reality as we know it D:

Edit: On teacher hitting: While I take my position back, I would like to point that teachers shouldn't be labeled strangers, because we need our kids to respect them and follow (withen reason) thier orders. We do NOT want them to follow stranger's orders.

Incenjucar

Paladin wrote:

So is a kid more morally justified than an adult in hitting another adult simply because the kid is expected to have less developed moral standards? Like, if you had to rate them

No.

The amount of justification is zero. There is no more or less, just zero.

TheOrange wrote:

We do NOT want them to follow stranger's orders.

Why would you ever want someone to learn to follow the orders of someone who hits them, whether or not they are a stranger? How does that not just sound like a quick way into spouse abuse?

Paladin

Incenjucar wrote:

Paladin wrote:

So is a kid more morally justified than an adult in hitting another adult simply because the kid is expected to have less developed moral standards? Like, if you had to rate them

No.

The amount of justification is zero. There is no more or less, just zero.

I can't work with that, and it doesn't jive with what I see either. If you can't compare them, then if a kid hits an adult, and the adult hits the kid back, that's the same as an adult hitting a kid, and the kid hitting the adult back, and that's just as reprehensible as a kid hitting another kid who hits the first kid back. Most people don't treat these situations the same.

What you are implicitly saying is that child violence is the same as adult violence is the same as adult-child violence. This is a different paradigm from what advocates of violence or whatever believe, and if this remains a dividing issue, communication about corporal punishment can't even start.

TheOrange

Incenjucar wrote:

TheOrange wrote:

We do NOT want them to follow stranger's orders.

Why would you ever want someone to learn to follow the orders of someone who hits them, whether or not they are a stranger? How does that not just sound like a quick way into spouse abuse?

I don't know, this feels like a huge leap from obay your teacher who hits you to its ok if your spouse hits you. I don't want teachers to be able to hit my kids as they see fit; but my middle school was a warzone, and while I was a big kid, I didn't get bullied a lot, but I did dish out some bullying of my own, kids cried from what I and others did because we were bigger.

These smaller kids? Seeing us get hit infront of class (by a ruler, on the hand, with a specific number of hits set by policy dependent on the crime) is what made them feel there is a sense of justice, I wouldn't want to take that from them. Hell, if I didn't get hit after what I did to a certian kid, I would still feel guilty. The hitting releaved MY guilt.

mythago

TheOrange wrote:

These smaller kids? Seeing us get hit infront of class (by a ruler, on the hand, with a specific number of hits set by policy dependent on the crime) is what made them feel there is a sense of justice, I wouldn't want to take that from them.

Maybe actually having a just school instead of a "war zone" would, you know, create a sense of justice?

TheOrange

mythago wrote:

TheOrange wrote:

These smaller kids? Seeing us get hit infront of class (by a ruler, on the hand, with a specific number of hits set by policy dependent on the crime) is what made them feel there is a sense of justice, I wouldn't want to take that from them.

Maybe actually having a just school instead of a "war zone" would, you know, create a sense of justice?

But is it possible? How was your middle school experience? Add to that, it was an all boy school, with an all male staff. So you know, testastarone or however that was spelled .

But in all seriousness, yes, we need more just schools, but in thier absence; if you have to choose between two extremes, one where a teacher isn't even allowed to stop a fight between a big and a small kid happening in front of him, and one where he can stop it, and punish the offender himself. Which seems to be better for the kids?

electricitylikesme

TheOrange wrote:

mythago wrote:

TheOrange wrote:

These smaller kids? Seeing us get hit infront of class (by a ruler, on the hand, with a specific number of hits set by policy dependent on the crime) is what made them feel there is a sense of justice, I wouldn't want to take that from them.

Maybe actually having a just school instead of a "war zone" would, you know, create a sense of justice?

But is it possible? How was your middle school experience? Add to that, it was an all boy school, with an all male staff. So you know, testastarone or however that was spelled.

Yeah that's a bullshit cultural expectation rather then actual science or evidence.

It is an atrocious idea to further reinforce the notion that "being a man" involves committing acts of violence in a routine fashion.