The Bible and spanking

[Alcon]

If it worked for Rehoboam...

[Alcon]

I knew there was a reason kids grew up decent in the good old days!  LOL

If you are at all looking for more observation science, the general thrust of studies indicates that spanking may not be especially effective long-term.  The American Academy of Pediatrics, kind of the Moderate Heros of the medical world sometimes, strongly recommends against the use of physical punishment as a form of child discipline, calling it "the least effective way to discipline."  The APA also indicates that there is ample evidence that corporal punishment may cause long-term harm, and teach that it is acceptable to engage violence to cause someone weaker to submit.

Because of the multi-variable problem associated with studying spanking, this can't exactly be 100% proven.  Then again, the inverse can't be either, and when there's indications that harm may be caused, I think we need to be circumspect.  Either way, "kids growing up decent" probably relates a lot more to cultural norms than spanking.  Spanking is illegal in many parts of Scandinavia, and their crime rates are drastically lower than ours.  It's kind of like guns in Canada -- it's not a lower/higher rate of ownership that keeps their gun crime rate lower than ours.  It's a false comparison.

Anyway:  There is little empirical evidence that spanking is more effective long-term than strict supportiveness without spanking; the opposite, in fact.  And considering the possible higher correlation with bad behaviors later, my (non-theological) opinion is that it's wrong.  Two cents.

[Alcon]

and teach that it is acceptable to engage violence to cause someone weaker to submit.

Sometimes it is ok to do make the weaker submit.  In fact, sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Didn't mean to say it wasn't.  In a superior-inferior relationship, like young kid & adult, it's a necessity.  Ignoring the practical arguments and speaking only in moral absolutes, my problem is with the "engage violence" part of the equation.

[Alcon]

As long as the parents don't intend to cause long-term physical damage (long-term as in more than a couple hours), then I have no problem with it.  I can't stand any government trying to tell the parents how they are to raise and discipline their children.  The only thing the government should be able to interfere on, should it be necessary, is the medical well-being of a child (such as is the recent case of the boy in Minnesota).  While spanking may cause temporary pain, it will do more to develop the child and rid the child of said behavior.  For some children, spanking does not work, and some may even LIKE to be spanked (though that is a bigger issue).  When spanking is not the answer, grounding or time out or loss of privileges/time with friends maybe the answer.

Radical neo-hippie organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics disagree with that statement.  If spanking was clearly more effective and healthy long-term, the only remaining argument would be morality.  But that very fact is disputed.

The bottom line is the parents should do whatever is in the best interest of the child and whatever will correct the behavior in the most effective and efficient way.

The most immediately effective corrective behavior may not be in the overall best interest, tho.

[Alcon]

Well in the good old days you got a whipping at school and then another when you got home.  And those people won WW 2.  So I don't think it did any lasting damage.  What I do not support is these people who beat there kids until they need to go to the emergency room.  That is just sick. 

We just had one here not long ago.  So terrible.

Wait...spanking must be effective because we won WWII?  So spanking was the main variable leading up to V-E Day?  Do the Germans not spank?  I've heard they're actually real into that.  Some videos or something.

Wait, what were we talking about?    Oh, yeah, I don't support beating the s**t out of seven-year-olds either.  But looking for all of these broad-brush cultural correlations when we have specific studies on the matter...I don't see why.  "We won a war when spanking was more common" vs. "this is a study that follows-up on later life behavior among the spanked and non-spanked with sufficient discipline."  Why's the former better than the latter?

[Alcon]

You're providing a narrative and no evidence.  Starting a sentence with "all I'm saying," and then completely rehashing the same flawed argument, doesn't make the argument less flawed.  You're confusing correlation and causation.  Society was more authoritarian back then, and individuality was less valued.  Spanking goes along with that culture, but it is not the cause of lower crime rates.  Here's an example.  You know what's an authoritarian nation with a vastly lower crime rate than we had even in the Good Old Days?  Singapore.  You know what they don't allow?  Guns.  So, ready to lose your Second Amendment rights?  After all, in a country with virtually no crime, guns aren't allowed, nor are many of the individual liberties you value as an American.

Of course, this argument is nonsense, and that's my point.  If you're going to argue that there are indications that simply removing guns, does not lower crime rates, you now understand what I'm talking about when I tell you that your line of argument is fundamentally flawed.  There is no reason to choose multi-variable correlation and narrative when you have earnest, less flawed attempts at establishing a direct observation.  Here, we do have those.  Why ignore them?

For the record:  If someone else hit my kid, regardless of circumstance, I would have them charged with fourth-degree assault, private parochial school or public.