29
   

Spare the rod . . .

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:15 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I'm curious as to your response to this...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Learning the lesson that those who are 'bigger' than you - and note that this isn't really about physical size, but about a power discrepancy - can punish you if you break the rules is an important lesson for children to learn, as they are going to experience exactly this situation over and over in their lives, whether the 'bigger' person is the Law or your Employer or some other authority-bearing unit that we are forced to deal with.


to which I replied...

JPB wrote:

But none of those entities can hit you, right? Not ONE. Why? Because it's assault and assaulting a child is no way to teach them a lesson.


If there are consequences that happen throughout life when one doesn't follow the rules, shouldn't the consequences be the same things we use to teach our children?


Sure they can hit you! If you don't follow the orders of a police officer, he is authorized to use force to subdue you. We can discuss the moral basis for this all you like but this is the plain fact of the matter; failure to follow legal orders from a police officer is going to result in your ass getting beat 90% of the time.

The government can penalize you financially to a tremendous degree and is authorized to imprison you for life and even take your life in many states, if you don't follow their rules. I find this to be entirely consistent with the punishment a child would face.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Absolutely not; it is your side of the argument which is conflating spanking with Bad parenting, which is an incorrect position.

I don't claim that spanking makes one a bad parent.

I do claim that spanking does not necessarily make one a good parent, which is what you've espoused.

Spanking can work, but it doesn't work very often, and when it does work it doesn't work any better than other choices.

If you still want to hit your kids knowing that, then I feel sorry for your future children.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:17 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Absolutely not; it is your side of the argument which is conflating spanking with Bad parenting, which is an incorrect position.

I don't claim that spanking makes one a bad parent.

I do claim that spanking does not necessarily make one a good parent, which is what you've espoused.

Spanking can work, but it doesn't often work, and when it does work it doesn't work any better than other choices.

If you want to hit your kids knowing that, then I feel sorry for your future children.


Why feel sorry for them? I am not sorry it was done to me. It left no lasting harm.

Others in this thread have made it entirely clear that they consider spanking to be Bad Parenting, even if you have not done so. My responses have been to several people who are taking generally the same position opposite mine.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:18 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm usually not a traditionalist, but in this case I totally am - spare the rod, spoil the child.


This is the absolutely least defensible aspect IMO. It's actually saying that it's BAD to NOT hit a child. You offer yourself as proof. I can match that with myself (I wasn't spanked, and I'm sickeningly law-abiding), and my daughter (never spanked, same).


I am not claiming that all children need to be spanked, or they will be ruined;


You are, though! That's exactly what "spare the rod, spoil the child" is. If you don't spank them, they will be ruined.


That is not my interpretation of that phrase; and the usage of the word 'rod' in that sentence can be either taken literally or metaphorically, depending on one's position; the point remains the same either way.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why feel sorry for them? I am not sorry it was done to me. It left no lasting harm.

Because you are deliberately choosing a sub-optimal disciplinary method. That doesn't speak well for your future as a parent....
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
That is not my interpretation of that phrase; and the usage of the word 'rod' in that sentence can be either taken literally or metaphorically, depending on one's position; the point remains the same either way.


It precisely doesn't, though! Laughing

We're all saying that it's important to use discipline in raising children -- that's the metaphorical "rod." A point about a metaphorical rod would not be one that we disagree with.

We are rather strongly disagreeing with your point that sparing the literal rod spoils the child, though.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That is not my interpretation of that phrase; and the usage of the word 'rod' in that sentence can be either taken literally or metaphorically, depending on one's position; the point remains the same either way.

How very convenient for you. You get to pick whichever meaning you want, right? When it suits you, you say it means corporal punishment. When it doesn't suit you for it to mean that, then "rod" suddenly means other forms of discipline.

I'd think you'd get tired, tap dancing like that.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:32 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why feel sorry for them? I am not sorry it was done to me. It left no lasting harm.

Because you are deliberately choosing a sub-optimal disciplinary method. That doesn't speak well for your future as a parent....


I find the evidence stating that it is sub-optimal to be less than convincing. An example of why: currently I have been assisting my wife with a comprehensive review of much of the literature surrounding autism and developmental difficulties. The change in recommendations and understanding of the developmental difficulties these children experience has evolved significantly over the last two decades. I am unsure why people believe that current thinking in psychology ever represents an end-all determination of truth, or what is correct and incorrect in life.

This is the problem with soft, fungible sciences - testable experimentation often leads to contradictory results, in which 'experts' use their best judgment to make determinations. It is not comparable to other forms of scientific testing whatsoever. Therefore, while I respect the profession, and believe that practicing psychologists really do help people with their problems and improve their lives, I take generalized recommendations based on rather fuzzy 'science' with a grain of salt.

I have no idea why you believe my wife doesn't understand this - and what more, why you think she wouldn't agree with me. The profession of psychology has no fewer quacks and fools in it than any other.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:35 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That is not my interpretation of that phrase; and the usage of the word 'rod' in that sentence can be either taken literally or metaphorically, depending on one's position; the point remains the same either way.

How very convenient for you. You get to pick whichever meaning you want, right? When it suits you, you say it means corporal punishment. When it doesn't suit you for it to mean that, then "rod" suddenly means other forms of discipline.

I'd think you'd get tired, tap dancing like that.


On the contrary, I have never once in this thread stated that I believe corporal punishment is absolutely necessary for a child to be raised correctly; whereas others have made the opposite claim, without a doubt.

I simply do not fear it's application to the degree that some seem to, and I believe it is an effective means of dealing with serious transgressions a child commits.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Except that you did, by saying you agree with "spare the rod, spoil the child."

You can say that you said it quickly and you didn't mean it, or that you meant only in the metaphorical sense and not the literal sense, but you can't say you didn't say it.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Certainly, it's an evolving field. Any research more than 10 years old is suspect, IMO.

On the other hand, it's remarkable how consistent this advice has been....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:46 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Except that you did, by saying you agree with "spare the rod, spoil the child."

You can say that you said it quickly and you didn't mean it, or that you meant only in the metaphorical sense and not the literal sense, but you can't say you didn't say it.


I believe that 'spare the rod, spoil the child' is entirely true, in terms of disciplining. If your personal ethos says to you that corporal punishment is wrong, that's fine with me; the rule stays the same.

I think if you review my posting you will find that nothing I have written is inconsistent with my position on this matter.

Cycloptichorn
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:59 pm
@dyslexia,
I agree with that - it doesn't sound as if the parent meant this as an abuse, but thought this was more of an appropriate punishment. I mean he tried other methods and it didn't sound like he smacked the kid out of anger. I think counseling with good sound advice on how to handle this is more appropriate.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Uffda. This thread was about a literal use of a rod (or a belt, I think it was). The title is "Spare the rod..." After you spend some time talking about how literal use of a rod (a willow switch, was it?) was a good thing for you, you complete the aphorism ("spare the rod, spoil the child") and say you agree with it.

So, yeah, that's all inconsistent with turning around and saying you only agree with the metaphorical reading of the aphorism.

Anyway.

This point has taken over several other points that were made further back when there was a rush of posts. Like: "traditional" marriage arguments and "traditional" discipline arguments have a lot in common.
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 04:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
To me in this case, it isn't the "spanking" so much, but the use of a belt and even more so the bruising. If the child got bruised it was too severe. I don't love the idea of spanking, but I can understand that sometimes for some children it may be effective - but never to leave a bruise.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 04:04 pm
@sozobe,
My children must be the opposite. They have been spanked (very rarely) and are snotty and fresh to us (of course within limits) and are perfect angels with everyone else - well at least that is what the teachers and other parents have said to us.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 04:12 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:


So, yeah, that's all inconsistent with turning around and saying you only agree with the metaphorical reading of the aphorism.


I personally agree with the aphorism both metaphorically and specifically; I don't care if the 'rod' is physical or some other form of punishment which is effective. In my experience the physical punishment was effective, but I understand why others may not feel that way.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 04:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Seriously, dude... if you agree with it specifically and not just metaphorically, you agree that parents who do not use corporal punishment are spoiling their children. There just isn't a lot of wiggle room.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 04:26 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Seriously, dude... if you agree with it specifically and not just metaphorically, you agree that parents who do not use corporal punishment are spoiling their children. There just isn't a lot of wiggle room.


I agree that parents who 'spare the rod' spoil their child, in terms of 'rod=discipline.' It is my belief that corporal punishment is an effective form of discipline, based on my personal experience. The law agrees with me on this point.

However, this is not a mandate that one must beat their child. Many children are good-natured and don't cause problems to the level requiring corporal punishment. It would be nonsensical to insist that those children are beat for no reason. I have never claimed that this should be the case, and I think your attempt to flip the logic of my argument is failing.

I do believe that children who commit serious transgressions should be subject to some form of corporal punishment, yes; and those who are not are at a great risk of turning out to be the little shits I spoke of earlier, when parents are too timid or afraid to assert control over their behavior. I'm happy that all of you have kids who are not enough of a problem to merit this sort of punishment, but please understand that this isn't the case for everyone - which seems to be the argument that many are making here.

I find studies (such as the one you linked to earlier) to be unconvincing, as there is every likelihood that children who are spanked would have engaged in the same behaviors later on in life even if they had not had corporal punishment administered. It's a correlation-causation error on the part of those who would argue that corporal punishment is wrong.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 04:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The whole point is that I'm not flipping anything... it's right there.

If you agree specifically, you agree specifically.

However you now say you don't agree specifically -- you agree metaphorically. You think all kids need discipline. We agree there (and there was never any disagreement. We've all said the same thing).

Within the framework of thinking that all kids need discipline, you think that corporal punishment is most appropriate in some situations. That's a much more defensible position than "spare the rod, spoil the child."

Now, this:

Quote:
Many children are good-natured and don't cause problems to the level requiring corporal punishment.


Shows a real lack of understanding of kids I think. All kids will misbehave, at some point in their lives. That's part of maturing. My kid, when she was littler, was a major handful. That doesn't mean that with NON-roddy discipline I wasn't able to get things under control.

I think this is outright wrong:

Quote:
I do believe that children who commit serious transgressions should be subject to some form of corporal punishment, yes;


Meanwhile,

Quote:
and those who are not [hit] are at a great risk of turning out to be the little shits I spoke of earlier


So you say, but it's pretty ipse dixit. Do you have anything objective to point to, here?


 

Related Topics

My daughter - Discussion by Seed
acting out or real problem - Question by Bl08791
Tween girls - Discussion by sozobe
Nebraska Safe Haven Law - Discussion by Diest TKO
For Parents - Discussion by shawn1989
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 05:08:41