Bad News for the A2K Anti-Spanking Lobby

My side argues that the state has taken the freedom from the citizens though deceit, and that the people are too stupid and asleep too notice. We are working on rectifying that problem now.

Europe is a different situation, they are just too traumatized from WW1 and WW2 to stand up for themselves, they dont think that they can afford to rock the boat because they think that if they do it will blow up. Americans dont have that problem. Europeans have forfeited their freedom knowingly and willingly, but as I said in another thread they never figured that the profiteers where going to be in charge as they are now, where the markets decide what the government does not the people. We shall see if the people are going to stand for that, I kinda doubt it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2011/12/spanking_is_on_the_decline_why_.html

Ah Yes, the "we are so much better humans than our ancestors" story line....how predicable. Our youth of today are the most unprepared for life to come down the pike in a long while, but the parents are great, because they dont believe in spanking as much as our ancestors. Claims of moral purity count more than do results these days.

I can see the propriety of spanking applied to officials of government,
when Individual citizens choose to DISCIPLINE their employees
and REMIND them who is working for whom,
but this is not to imply that we shud forget about tarring & feathering them.





David

Spanking makes kids more aggressive, should be illegal: report

http://www.canada.com/Spanking+makes+kids+more+aggressive+should+illegal+report/6110648/story.html
BY HEATHER YUNDT, FOR POSTMEDIA NEWS FEBRUARY 6, 2012


OTTAWA - Spanking makes children more aggressive and should be made illegal, a newly released report suggests.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal released a report Monday detailing two decades of research pointing to that conclusion. Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba and Ron Ensom of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, authors of the report, say the federal government should remove section 43 from the criminal code which allows physical punishment in certain circumstances. This section was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004.

``No study has ever found physical punishment to have a long-term positive effect,'' Durrant and Ensom said.

The two point to research, including a study designed to reduce difficult behaviour in children, in which researchers found that families that reduced their use of physical punishment saw a decline in aggression and anti-social behaviour in their children.

Images of children's brains gathered in another study suggested that physical punishment may change areas in the brain connected to performance on IQ tests and could increase a child's vulnerability to drug and alcohol dependence.

A 2000 Canadian study found that children who were spanked were seven times more likely to be assaulted by their parents.

``The evidence is clear and compelling - physical punishment of children and youth plays no useful role in their upbringing,'' Durrant and Ensom said in The Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth, which was endorsed by more than 400 organizations.

Andrea Mrozek, manager of research at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, is concerned by Durrant and Ensom's conclusions.

``I'm concerned that the studies they examined correlate abuse and spanking and say that those are the same things,'' she said. ``Those are not the same things. They are distinct. Because you have loving parents across this country who discipline their children with one on the bottom in the appropriate age range . . . They are not abusing their kids.''

Mrozek says banning spanking could criminalize regular parents.

``I'm not an advocate for spanking, I'm an advocate for parents who know their children well and can decide,'' she said. ``Within one family you may have one child for whom spanking is an appropriate use of discipline and one child for whom it is not.''

Durrant and Ensom's report points to 31 countries that have already banned physical punishment for children, including Germany, Sweden and New Zealand. New Zealand established a ban on physical punishment in 2007. The country held a referendum in 2009 which resulted in a majority of voters calling for the ban to be overturned. The New Zealand government upheld the ban.

Durrant and Ensom say legislation is not all that is needed. They say that education and support for parents could reduce the use of physical punishment.

But since the point of raising children is to produce happy healthy and productive adults that is not much of an argument.

And yet the majority of Americans find it useful, I have certainly found it useful and no busy body political activist is going to have any luck causing me to dismiss my experience. I dont figure that this claim will sway many in the majority which approves of spanking either, I mean someone can claim that the moon is made of swiss cheese but that does not mean that I am going to believe them. The experience of our lives trumps stories told by those who are pushing a political agenda Every. Single. Time.

That's a very long range goal. It doesn't mean you don't want your children to be happy and healthy (both physically and psychologically) while they are still children.
And you're also ignoring the finding in the article Ceili posted that physical discipline may affect a child's developing brain in a way that might predispose to problems with alcohol or drug dependence, and that is something that could interfere with the child becoming a happy, healthy, and productive, adult.

If reducing the use of physical punishment results in a decline in difficult behaviors in children, such as aggression, and anti-social behaviors, why isn't that a good argument for decreasing the use of physical punishment?

That may be because you failed to find more effective methods of discipline. And that can be related to your own limitations, and not to the fact that physical punishment has benefits over other methods. Because you found it useful, does not mean it was the optimal method of discipline for your children or that it had positive benefit for them. And you're likely not considering, or possibly even recognizing, any of the negative effects it might also have had on your children, given how closed-minded you are about the topic.

Study links physical punishment to later mental disorders
By Michelle Healy, USA TODAY
Children who are spanked, hit, or pushed as a means of discipline may be at an increased risk of mental problems in adulthood — from mood and anxiety disorders to drug and alcohol abuse, new research suggests.
New research suggests a link between non-abusive physical punishment and several types of mental disorders.

Although it is well established that physical and sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and other severe forms of maltreatment in childhood are associated with mental illness, this is one of the first studies to show a link between non-abusive physical punishment and several different types of mental disorders, says epidemiologist Tracie Afifi, lead author of the study in today's Pediatrics.
"There is a significant link between the two," says Afifi, an assistant professor of epidemiology in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Canada. "Individuals who are physically punished have an increased likelihood of having mental health disorders." Approximately 2% to 7% of mental disorders in the study were linked to physical punishment, she says.
The study's findings add evidence to the argument that "physical punishment should not be used on any child, at any age," she says.
Parents' right to use physical punishment has been abolished in more than 30 nations, but not in the USA or Canada, says the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment, endorsed by the United Nations and others.
For the study, Afifi and colleagues analyzed data from a government survey of 35,000 non-institutionalized adults in the USA, collected between 2004 and 2005.
Countries that have banned spanking

More than 30 countries, have laws that prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, including the home. A sampling and the year the legislation was approved:
Sweden: 1979
Norway: 1987
Austria: 1989
Israel: 2000
Germany: 2000
Spain: 2007
Netherlands: 2007
New Zealand: 2007
Kenya: 2010
South Sudan: 2011

About 1,300 of the respondents, all over age 20, were considered to have experienced physical punishment as children. They reported that they had, sometimes or more often, been "pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped or hit by your parents or any adult living in your house."
But some family researchers argue that spanking, used properly, can be appropriate discipline.
"Certainly, overly severe physical punishment is going to have adverse effects on children," says psychologist Robert Larzelere, of Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. "But for younger kids, if spanking is used in the most appropriate way and the child perceives it as being motivated by concern for their behavior and welfare, then I don't think it has a detrimental effect."
A 2005 scientific review he co-authored, of studies comparing spanking with non-physical discipline methods, identified an "optimal type of physical discipline," referred to as conditional spanking, and said that when it was used as a backup to nonphysical discipline it was better at reducing noncompliance and antisocial behavior.
While the new study rules out the most severe cases of physically lashing out at children, , "it does nothing to move beyond correlations to figure out what is actually causing the mental health problems," says Larzelere. He criticized the study's reliance on memories of events from years earlier, and says it's not clear when punishment occurred. "The motivation that the child perceives and when and how and why the parent uses (spanking) makes a big difference. All of that is more important than whether it was used or not."
Afifi acknowledges that it's difficult to change people's mind on this topic, but says "we're confident of the reliability of our data, and the data strongly indicate that physical punishment should not be used on children — at any age. And it's important for parents to be aware of that."

Wake me when you know......the Sun MAY be purple tomorrow jsyk

How true and the moon may be make of green cheese as after all we never in fact landed on that body.

Set does it better with "and unicorns might suddenly fly out of my ass"....this trying to wrap speculation up as fact has gotten out of had. Sloppy thinking will not do when we are trying to decide if we should restrict individual freedom even more.

While I have my concerns about correlative studies, I think your attempt to simply sweep it under the rug because they use the word "may" is pretty pathetic.

This is a legitimate line of scientific inquiry, not wild-ass speculation or a bizarre fantasy scenario, which is where a description involving anal-genesis of fantasy equines would be appropriate.

Of course it's a legitimate line of inquiry, and the results of available studies all tend to run in the same direction and indicate negative effects.

It's also an important line of inquiry for parents who want to know what the best child rearing practices might be, and which methods of discipline are most effective and least harmful to a child.

That's obviously not Hawkeye's interest. He's only concerned with his "individual freedom" and he doesn't want his ability to use physical punishment on his children, or future grandchildren, restricted by any possible potential moves by the government. So, since he pursues only his narrow self- interests, rather than seeking to know and understand what might be in the best interests of the child, he has to try to sweep research findings like these under the rug by pouncing on words like "may". I agree with you that it's a pathetic move on his part. Most research results are evaluated on the basis of correlations or probabilities of chance occurrence, and, particularly with complex variables, rarely are those correlations or probabilities 100%--in interpreting most research results, a "may" can generally be found.

When someone wants to remain closed-minded, they'll find any excuse to do that, no matter how lame the excuse.

It's also not important that Hawkeye, or anyone else participating in this thread, accept these findings. He's entited to nuture his ignorance.

So far, the preponderance of the evidence raises unsettling concerns about the wisdom of using physical punishment, in the minds of those who are concerned with the best interests of children.

It is USA Today that put in the "may", not the researcher.




no qualifiers in there


USA Today appears to be nervous about stating anything definitively. Dr. Afifi does not have that problem.

The "increased likelihood" is another way of saying the "may".

There is almost always a "may", in some form or another, in the interpretation of research results. Correlations or probabilities are rarely 100%.

But, if you want to avoid an "increased likelihood" of negative effects, you would not use physical punishment. The information is still useful even though it doesn't pertain to absolute certainty that something negative will occur.

Not all smokers get lung cancer or COPD, but, if you smoke, you have "increased likelihood" of developing those conditions--you "may" develop them.

"May" is for individuals.

The "increased likelihood" is for the entire population.

They don't yet know which individual will be effected, but they know a percentage of the population will be.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/spanking-kids-leads-adult-mental-illnesses/story?id=16695697

After spending a few billion of taxpayer's money the physicists at CERN have announced that they may have found the Higg's Boson and this important entity may be what is holding the Universe together.

It has also been announced that this momentous discovery may change all our lives in a similar way that the discovery of the wheel has done.

There is also the difficulty of defining "mental health problems".

Not that I would ever hit a kid. But not because it may do this or that. It's because it doesn't seem right. And it risks the kid growing up and waiting until the bastard is in a wheelchair to exact appropriate revenge.

Does this mean i can get a spanking when you get home? Will you wear the red latex bustier?

It amounts to pretty much the same thing--a given individual "may" be negatively effected because of the "increased likelihood" of negative effects in the population. They both refer to predictability of effects.

I wouldn't discount these findings simply because either "may" or "increased likelihood" was used in interpreting the results. That's absurd nit-picking, and it was that sort of nit-picking by Hawkeye that led to this tangent.

On the other hand, this is a more significant caution when interpreting the results in terms of cause and effect.

Setanta seems eager. Get a whippy cane Beth and show him a proper spanking. If he controls the level of the spanking he is the boss.

I shouldn`t have used the USA Today article. There were better, more informative choice from Canadian sources but I didn`t want the inevitable complaints about it being Canadian. In one article, they compared it to breast cancer. Only 11% percent of women will ever present with the disease, that doesn't mean only 11% of women should be checked.