Spanking

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.

.

Right, should be legal
9
14%
Right, should be illegal
2
3%
Wrong, should be legal
12
18%
Wrong, should be illegal
14
21%
Garja should be spanked
29
44%
 
Total votes: 66

User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: Spanking

Post by gamevideo113 »

Kids (and adults) can't reason very well sometimes, therefore punishment becomes a tool for education, and it is necessary. Idk how anybody can argue that punishment should be avoided as much as possible. When it's needed, it's needed. If i had a son and i found out that he started smoking i wouldn't let him go out for a month or so. The thing is that if you let kids get away with just a rebuke every time they do something bad, they will end up thinking they can do anything and there will be basically no consequences. This is not how the world works. If you mess up, you're going to have to face the consequences of your actions. Educating a child is really hard and obviously you need to find a good balance between reward and punishment. If you give him everything and never punish him when necessary, he will end up being ungrateful and take everything for granted; i you only punish him and never reward him, he's going to hate you and he won't become a very well educated person in most cases. Spanking is a form of punishment and i am generally not against it, although obviously having to punish a kid is never an enjoyable experience for both sides, especially when violence is involved. The important thing, though, is that the kid learns the lesson.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

VooDoo_BoSs wrote:
momuuu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:If there was a significant causal relationship between being religious and decreased mental health or negative behaviours like violence, then yeah you could conclude that. I don't see how that would be "retarded".

Because it's just a significant correlation, not a causal relationship. Setting aside that such a research would have to subjectively define succesful, it might also fail to take into account the statistical differences between religious and nonreligious groups. And then in the end, we're unable to say anything about individual cases. Maybe some kid would've lost himself in the criminal world were it not for his religion. And maybe another kid was raped by some priest and scarred for life.

And that's the point. First of all, how do these researches about spanking even define succes? Do they take into account that there could be significant differences between parents who do spank and parents who don't spank beyond the spanking. For example, it could be that the parents that do not spank are on average just better parents and thus never even consider spanking their kids because the methods they use are already completely adequate, while spanking parents are on average worse parents and then resort to spanking. Maybe if those parents wouldn't spank, the result would on average be even worse. Then we're explaining this correlation as spanking is good.

It is borderline impossible to even determine a causal relationship between spanking and not spanking with regards to how good it is for a child. It is possible to determine a correlation, but a correlation is a causation.

That's why I think these sciences are silly. To defend what I'm studying: Physics is at its core just mapping all correlations. If we mapped all correlated quantities then physicists would be pretty content (although at heart, many would like to explain how things work too).


You haven't read any of the studies, have you?

The whole point of the significant, casual relationship is that they control for other factors including socioeconomic status, education, etc. That is the point of scientific studies, they control for confounding factors.

Seriously, science is a real thing. Statistics are real. Please go read the studies and you can see how the researchers control for the exact issues you discuss.

The whole point of peer-reviewed research is that, before publication, a group of peers / researchers will review the work and ask the exact questions you are asking.

I know very well that statistics provide correlations. Also, I'd check those researches out if you would be so kind as to purchase those for me.

Note how my most important criticism can hardly be accounted for, as it's mostly hypothetical: spanking parents would do worse if not spanking. I don't even see how one could account for this statistically.
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by lordraphael »

Goodspeed wrote:If there was a significant causal relationship between being religious and decreased mental health or negative behaviours like violence, then yeah you could conclude that. I don't see how that would be "retarded".

Ive read my fair share of social studies ( as a teacher thats what you gotta do during your studies) and i kinda agree with jerom. The answers are pretty much always a "yes, but..." or a "no, but...."
and then they list all of the excpetions that deviate from their general answer essentially making their overall answer invalid because of all the exceptions they are mentioning.
Basically their answers to the questions at hand apply to only a very small minority of people making it stupid to conclude any major informations. (Altho i see potential in social studies which use the Big Data as source material, asssuming you gain enough informations relevant for the thesis at hand, the large sample size would make answers a lot more valid)
I wouldnt go as far as to say its comtpletly useless but not really helpful either.

on topic btw: I think parents shouldnt spank their childs, however I think spanking of kids by a teacher for example could be helpful ( I dont think id ever do it even if it was allowed, but I could see it being helpful in some schools in germany where respect to authority is extremely low and teachers basically have no way to make even the most basic education)

My reasoning is the following: Parents shouldnt spank their childs becasue children need to feel save and loved at home, spanking doesnt exactly help to ensure that I think. But if for w.e. reason children dont show respect to other authorities, including teachers, they should get punished for it by someone whos not their parents. A teacher doesnt need to get loved, he needs to convey knowledge first and foremost, of course being loved and liked usually helps a lot with that, but sometimes even that doesnt help and sometimes kids have no respect at all, no matter how good a teacher is. This is were
spanking could come in helpful I think.

Edit : ive never been spanked by my parents in my life. 1 or 2 times my father punched me a bit on the arm (not hard, it didnt hurt) when i had been extremely disprespectful and even that was enough to make me feel awful despite him apologising for it pretty much immediatly afterwards, so I can only imagine how it would feel if that happened on a regular basis.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Spanking

Post by deleted_user0 »

kids should also feel safe and loved in a classroom. In general, people are more willing to do things for a friend than for a "monster" they fear. Violence undermines authority, it doesn't convey it.
No Flag chronojj
Musketeer
Posts: 89
Joined: Apr 7, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by chronojj »

just a few general comments...

Personal experience based on how you were raised means nothing, because everyone is different. I was spanked as a kid. I turned out great. I love my parents and respect authority. I was the top of my class from elementary school-university. I now have a successful career and a family - the American dream. Did spanking do all of that? No, of course not. There's a multitude of factors. My personal experience means nothing; neither does anyone else's - at least in trying to prove whether or not spanking is good. Additionally, anyone who doesn't have kids shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion on how to raise children. Reading books/taking classes/eating intelligence cubes does nothing to provide actual experience. Third, anyone can sit in an office and concoct studies/sit in front of a pc and prove things, but that doesn't provide anything concrete. Studies are just studies. It's silly to wallpaper the entire population based on a few tests. There can be some use to stuides, from a general, informational side of things. But everyone is different. Studying people and figuring out why they do what they do is practically impossible. A million different things happen to a person throughout their life; how can anyone judge what did/did not cause someone to do something. Sure there's always that one person that went through something ridiculous (and thus became what he became), but overall, a person becomes who he is based on a lifetime of experiences, in combination with how that person reacts (which is different for each person, because each person is different).

Is violence good? never. Key point: spanking is not equivalent to violence. Can spanking be good? Sure. Can it be bad? Sure. I have a three year old. My wife and I spank him from time to time. We also punish in different ways. What I've learned is there is no perfect answer. A spank can be great in one instance; the problem gets resolved. Other times, he can be spanked and 2 minutes later repeat what caused him to be spanked. Why did it work before and not this time? Why can I timeout him once and he fixes his behavior, then the next timeout he just repeats the offense? Who knows. I'm not him. And I'm not 3.

One thing we do is we spank with an object (a wood spatula), not our hands. I think that is important. Additionally, don't spank in anger. Children are very smart. They understand what's going on. They know the difference between getting spanked due to anger/getting spanked for appropriate punishment. Children also know what they do is wrong. They aren't innocent angels. They can be downright evil. I especially enjoy the "hey, don't touch that", followed by my son getting as close as he can without touching "that". Now he's purposely being a jerk (it's kind of funny in a way - but not when it's something hot).

I have some siblings who didn't spank their kids at all. I have some siblings who did spank their kids. So far all my nieces/nephews have turned out great. Parenting is much, much more than spanking.

Finally, does my experience with my son mean anything to anyone else. No. What works for us might not work for anyone else. It's all different. Just have to figure out what does/does not work - and hopefully not too late. My opinion means nothing - just like everyone else's in this thread. Long story short, there is no right or wrong answer. Proper parenting will most likely result in proper kids. Bad parenting will most likely result in bad kids. It's easy to point out a few things on either side of the spectrum; other stuff, it just depends.
Spain NekoBerk
Lancer
Posts: 804
Joined: Oct 4, 2015
ESO: Nirket
Location: Barcelona

Re: Spanking

Post by NekoBerk »

Spank your sons and daughters is pointless, it won't educate them. [spoiler]You're just sexually abusing of your kid and maybe they will like to be spanked and they will act bad for get more.[/spoiler]

Maybe try to splash them water, just like the cats for educate your kid

phpBB [video]
"That's why we sing for these kids who don't have a thing
Except for a dream and a fuckin' rap magazine " - Eminem

"And we hate po-po
Wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho' " - Kendrick Lamar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

umeu wrote:kids should also feel safe and loved in a classroom. In general, people are more willing to do things for a friend than for a "monster" they fear. Violence undermines authority, it doesn't convey it.

way to not understand a point.
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by lordraphael »

umeu wrote:kids should also feel safe and loved in a classroom. In general, people are more willing to do things for a friend than for a "monster" they fear. Violence undermines authority, it doesn't convey it.

that statement sounds nice until you get into a school/ class where that statement simply wont be true, because there are children who dont respond to " love" and "safety" at all and maybe just enjoy blowing off steam and destroy your lessons. Now ofc if theres only 1 or 2 of them, you can maybe try to send them to another teacher, enforce that they have to leave the school or do w.e. other method you have at your disposal, but thats only relocating the problem to another class/ teacher and not solving it. And if you have a whole class of such pupils then youre fucked and then you wished that you could do sth else besides the std stuff that wont work there.
Personally ive never seen such classes but I also have been only in 2 schools and had a bunch of different classes.However Ive read reports about schools where teaching isnt possible anymore. I just hope I wont end up in one of those schools.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: Spanking

Post by kami_ryu »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Spanking

Post by Kaiserklein »

Thing is to hold a class, you need a natural charism. I remember one year having, with the same class, 2 different lessons. In one, it was a complete chaos, as in people throwing stuff, playing music loud on their phones, playing games on their phones, even insulting the teacher sometimes. In the other, no one would even chat with his neighbor. So basically, the teacher of the first lesson could give away some detention or whatever kind of punishment, it would never even remotely fix the problem. The teacher of the second lesson, of course, never had to punish anyone, cause no one would even try to cross the line.

Ideally, I think that's how parents and teachers should act with kids. But ofc, not everyone has this kind of charism, which is why most parents or teachers have to punish the kids. But then again, the punishment doesn't need to be spanks.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

lordraphael wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:If there was a significant causal relationship between being religious and decreased mental health or negative behaviours like violence, then yeah you could conclude that. I don't see how that would be "retarded".

Ive read my fair share of social studies ( as a teacher thats what you gotta do during your studies) and i kinda agree with jerom. The answers are pretty much always a "yes, but..." or a "no, but...."
and then they list all of the excpetions that deviate from their general answer essentially making their overall answer invalid because of all the exceptions they are mentioning.
Basically their answers to the questions at hand apply to only a very small minority of people making it stupid to conclude any major informations. (Altho i see potential in social studies which use the Big Data as source material, asssuming you gain enough informations relevant for the thesis at hand, the large sample size would make answers a lot more valid)
I wouldnt go as far as to say its comtpletly useless but not really helpful either.




NO

This is literally not true.

The studies are literally saying that spanking leads to negative life outcomes when controlling for confounding variables.

There is literally no "if" to it. What are you talking about????

According to people in this thread, science / statistics don't exist.

My mind is so blown by people here saying that scientific studies showing significant relationships between spanking and negative life outcomes when controlling for other factors aren't real?

Are we in la la land here? How about studies showing relationships between smoking and lung cancer? What about excessive caloric intake and weight gain? What about education and salary levels? I can't believe you guys are typing these comments with a straight face, as if statistics only apply sometimes.

The whole point of statistics is you have confidence intervals that can isolate confounding variables with 90%, 95%, 99% confidence, etc.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Jun 3, 2015
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

Re: Spanking

Post by yemshi »

lordraphael wrote:
umeu wrote:kids should also feel safe and loved in a classroom. In general, people are more willing to do things for a friend than for a "monster" they fear. Violence undermines authority, it doesn't convey it.

that statement sounds nice until you get into a school/ class where that statement simply wont be true, because there are children who dont respond to " love" and "safety" at all and maybe just enjoy blowing off steam and destroy your lessons. Now ofc if theres only 1 or 2 of them, you can maybe try to send them to another teacher, enforce that they have to leave the school or do w.e. other method you have at your disposal, but thats only relocating the problem to another class/ teacher and not solving it. And if you have a whole class of such pupils then youre fucked and then you wished that you could do sth else besides the std stuff that wont work there.
Personally ive never seen such classes but I also have been only in 2 schools and had a bunch of different classes.However Ive read reports about schools where teaching isnt possible anymore. I just hope I wont end up in one of those schools.

You're a teacher?
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by lordraphael »

yemshi wrote:
lordraphael wrote:
umeu wrote:kids should also feel safe and loved in a classroom. In general, people are more willing to do things for a friend than for a "monster" they fear. Violence undermines authority, it doesn't convey it.

that statement sounds nice until you get into a school/ class where that statement simply wont be true, because there are children who dont respond to " love" and "safety" at all and maybe just enjoy blowing off steam and destroy your lessons. Now ofc if theres only 1 or 2 of them, you can maybe try to send them to another teacher, enforce that they have to leave the school or do w.e. other method you have at your disposal, but thats only relocating the problem to another class/ teacher and not solving it. And if you have a whole class of such pupils then youre fucked and then you wished that you could do sth else besides the std stuff that wont work there.
Personally ive never seen such classes but I also have been only in 2 schools and had a bunch of different classes.However Ive read reports about schools where teaching isnt possible anymore. I just hope I wont end up in one of those schools.

You're a teacher?

not yet. but i have been at a school for 4 months where i teached quite a bit and also observed other teachers.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
Germany agrondergermane
Skirmisher
Donator 01
Posts: 130
Joined: Aug 20, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by agrondergermane »

lordraphael wrote:
umeu wrote:kids should also feel safe and loved in a classroom. In general, people are more willing to do things for a friend than for a "monster" they fear. Violence undermines authority, it doesn't convey it.

that statement sounds nice until you get into a school/ class where that statement simply wont be true, because there are children who dont respond to " love" and "safety" at all and maybe just enjoy blowing off steam and destroy your lessons. Now ofc if theres only 1 or 2 of them, you can maybe try to send them to another teacher, enforce that they have to leave the school or do w.e. other method you have at your disposal, but thats only relocating the problem to another class/ teacher and not solving it. And if you have a whole class of such pupils then youre fucked and then you wished that you could do sth else besides the std stuff that wont work there.
Personally ive never seen such classes but I also have been only in 2 schools and had a bunch of different classes.However Ive read reports about schools where teaching isnt possible anymore. I just hope I wont end up in one of those schools.

for those problem kids its a long road and they need a lot of help. spanking wouldnt solve it. and tbh unmeu is so fucking right, often times those kids just would need a lot of love and attention. most of the times they dont get that at home and u cant fix that at school ofc. and raph ur right too... u need very strict rules at school for those situations, but spanking isnt the answer. not everything is easy to solve. in general we have to accept that. im teaching immigrant kids up to the 4th class and many of them have the same problems. they just need a loving authority and a lot of time with strict rules. teachers on problem schools need to work together and help themselves to deal with the hard situations and those schools need social workers and psychologists. and in rare cases the only way is to take the child away from their parents. cause what matters the most is the parents house.
-Deep down I know it's me, and deep down I know you are so jealous :).- Sir_Musket 2018
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

VooDoo_BoSs wrote:
lordraphael wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:If there was a significant causal relationship between being religious and decreased mental health or negative behaviours like violence, then yeah you could conclude that. I don't see how that would be "retarded".

Ive read my fair share of social studies ( as a teacher thats what you gotta do during your studies) and i kinda agree with jerom. The answers are pretty much always a "yes, but..." or a "no, but...."
and then they list all of the excpetions that deviate from their general answer essentially making their overall answer invalid because of all the exceptions they are mentioning.
Basically their answers to the questions at hand apply to only a very small minority of people making it stupid to conclude any major informations. (Altho i see potential in social studies which use the Big Data as source material, asssuming you gain enough informations relevant for the thesis at hand, the large sample size would make answers a lot more valid)
I wouldnt go as far as to say its comtpletly useless but not really helpful either.




NO

This is literally not true.

The studies are literally saying that spanking leads to negative life outcomes when controlling for confounding variables.

There is literally no "if" to it. What are you talking about????

According to people in this thread, science / statistics don't exist.

My mind is so blown by people here saying that scientific studies showing significant relationships between spanking and negative life outcomes when controlling for other factors aren't real?

Are we in la la land here? How about studies showing relationships between smoking and lung cancer? What about excessive caloric intake and weight gain? What about education and salary levels? I can't believe you guys are typing these comments with a straight face, as if statistics only apply sometimes.

The whole point of statistics is you have confidence intervals that can isolate confounding variables with 90%, 95%, 99% confidence, etc.

It is literally impossible to conclude that spanking is per definition bad. Thats all I am and have been saying.

For one, how would you solve the possibility that you're inverting causes. Bad parents will see their kids be less succesful (which seems the only appropriate metric to determine bad parenting. But it seems entirely plausible that bad parents spank their kids more often. So then we could research that, and then obviously we find the same result but inversed. Unsuccesful kids are more likely to have been spanked.

The clear problem is that it is impossible to point at a cause. Clearly, both approaches (bad parents are more likely to spank their children and children that have been spanked had bad parents) are equally valid, statistically speaking.

And that is where I find contesting these sorts of researches very valid. Even if all the data was perfect (metaphysically one can always contest the data and the garantuee that they give for the future of course) then it is still impossible to conclude anything from it.

And then in these social studies, which merely look at likelyhood, we cant even conclude that spanking is always bad. Its not a valid conclusion, based on these researches that show merely a correlation between spanking and negative results for the kids, to conclude that spanking is always a bad thing to do. Thats like testing whether people prefer to write with their left or right hand, finding that people are statistically significantly more right handed and then concluding all people are right handed.

And thats where I think the main defense of spanking holds strong: what if a parent fails to apply techniques better than spanking and thus sees a kid consistently misbehave without the parent being able to adjust the kids behaviour? In that case it seems very much so possible that spanking, while a statistically bad way of raising a child, is actually going to have vastly more positive results than not spanking the kid.

You cannot prove these point wrong with statistical researches I think. That'd logically be an impossibility. You can only choose to believe or prefer one of the two explanations.

I believe one conclusion that I believe can be drawn based on the researched is that it is probably wiser to try to raise your children without spanking and try to avoid spanking your children for as much as you get positive results using different methods. That would only seem wise.
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

  • Quote

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

momuuu wrote:
VooDoo_BoSs wrote:
Show hidden quotes



NO

This is literally not true.

The studies are literally saying that spanking leads to negative life outcomes when controlling for confounding variables.

There is literally no "if" to it. What are you talking about????

According to people in this thread, science / statistics don't exist.

My mind is so blown by people here saying that scientific studies showing significant relationships between spanking and negative life outcomes when controlling for other factors aren't real?

Are we in la la land here? How about studies showing relationships between smoking and lung cancer? What about excessive caloric intake and weight gain? What about education and salary levels? I can't believe you guys are typing these comments with a straight face, as if statistics only apply sometimes.

The whole point of statistics is you have confidence intervals that can isolate confounding variables with 90%, 95%, 99% confidence, etc.



It is literally impossible to conclude that spanking is per definition bad. Thats all I am and have been saying.


No. It is possible to conclude with 95% certainty in the event of a p>0.05. That is literally how statistics work. Any study that cites a "significant" relationship implies 95% confidence, and most of the studies published had 99% confidence levels. Go to scholar.google.com, and type in "spanking", and you will see, literally, hundreds of studies on this. If they have a p<0.05 value each (most will have p>0.01), the % likelihood of that study being incorrect is 5%. The chance that 100 studies are all incorrect is less than 1 in 10^131. That is a greater number of atoms than exist in the universe.

For one, how would you solve the possibility that you're inverting causes. Bad parents will see their kids be less succesful (which seems the only appropriate metric to determine bad parenting. But it seems entirely plausible that bad parents spank their kids more often. So then we could research that, and then obviously we find the same result but inversed. Unsuccesful kids are more likely to have been spanked.


They control for socioeconomic, cultural, education, geographical, etc. factors. There are, literally, hundreds of studies. Do you really want to claim they are all missing something?

The clear problem is that it is impossible to point at a cause. Clearly, both approaches (bad parents are more likely to spank their children and children that have been spanked had bad parents) are equally valid, statistically speaking.


No.... they're not. Again, this is not how science or statistics work.

And that is where I find contesting these sorts of researches very valid. Even if all the data was perfect (metaphysically one can always contest the data and the garantuee that they give for the future of course) then it is still impossible to conclude anything from it.


Please see above my post regarding confidence intervals.

And then in these social studies, which merely look at likelyhood, we cant even conclude that spanking is always bad. Its not a valid conclusion, based on these researches that show merely a correlation between spanking and negative results for the kids, to conclude that spanking is always a bad thing to do. Thats like testing whether people prefer to write with their left or right hand, finding that people are statistically significantly more right handed and then concluding all people are right handed.


Sure, and not everybody who smokes gets lung cancer, it doesn't mean that you should smoke.

And thats where I think the main defense of spanking holds strong: what if a parent fails to apply techniques better than spanking and thus sees a kid consistently misbehave without the parent being able to adjust the kids behaviour? In that case it seems very much so possible that spanking, while a statistically bad way of raising a child, is actually going to have vastly more positive results than not spanking the kid.


I fail to see how violence inflicted by a family member is a better alternative than any other "consequence" that may occur from a misbehaving child. Violence is a terrible stain on our society that should be avoided at all costs. If what you say is true, then there should be studies showing that spanking children lead to positive outcomes. I challenge you to find a single one. If you can't, then please explain how it can sometimes be good if nobody has ever shown a relationship. Do you honestly believe that spanking is usually bad, but good when you do it?

You cannot prove these point wrong with statistical researches I think. That'd logically be an impossibility. You can only choose to believe or prefer one of the two explanations.

I believe one conclusion that I believe can be drawn based on the researched is that it is probably wiser to try to raise your children without spanking and try to avoid spanking your children for as much as you get positive results using different methods. That would only seem wise.


Sure... that can be your conclusion. But the data proves quite consequentially that spanking your children will negatively affect their life.

We can argue about this non-stop, but at the end of the day, we are moving towards a world where violence against children is increasingly condemned. I promise you that your children will remember that you beat them and will judge you by the standards of their adulthood.
Great Britain InsectPoison
Lancer
Posts: 970
Joined: Mar 6, 2016

Re: Spanking

Post by InsectPoison »

Sirmusket got spanked look how he turned out
Image
Image
Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Spanking

Post by momuuu »

VooDoo_BoSs wrote:
momuuu wrote:It is literally impossible to conclude that spanking is per definition bad. Thats all I am and have been saying.


No. It is possible to conclude with 95% certainty in the event of a p>0.05. That is literally how statistics work. Any study that cites a "significant" relationship implies 95% confidence, and most of the studies published had 99% confidence levels. Go to scholar.google.com, and type in "spanking", and you will see, literally, hundreds of studies on this. If they have a p<0.05 value each (most will have p>0.01), the % likelihood of that study being incorrect is 5%. The chance that 100 studies are all incorrect is less than 1 in 10^131. That is a greater number of atoms than exist in the universe.

You fail to read properly. It's possible to conclude with 95% certainty that there is a correlation between spanking and people being less succesful in life. That is not the same as saying spanking is per definition bad. You are therefore claiming you can conclude something based on something that does not warrant that conclusion. The problem here is that the basic language is forming a definitive barrier between you and actual understanding. I cannot solve this problem unfortunately. If you thinking "spanking being per definition bad" is equivalent to "spanking being correlated to people being less succesful in life" then you are simply doing a poor job at reading. The unfortunate result is that you somehow assume I am unable to understand statistics while I am very aware of the ins and outs of statistics.

For one, how would you solve the possibility that you're inverting causes. Bad parents will see their kids be less succesful (which seems the only appropriate metric to determine bad parenting. But it seems entirely plausible that bad parents spank their kids more often. So then we could research that, and then obviously we find the same result but inversed. Unsuccesful kids are more likely to have been spanked.


They control for socioeconomic, cultural, education, geographical, etc. factors. There are, literally, hundreds of studies. Do you really want to claim they are all missing something?

You simply didn't understand my point, again due to poor reading. You can not control for the case I outlined, because you would literally be checking the same thing. I have asked you how you would even check for this explanation and you have not provided an answer to that; probably because you cannot think of one, which is because there is no way to check for that. I will try to rephrase this once again, in the hopes that you understand the point:

It could be possible that bad parents end up struggling to raise their children and then elect to spank their children more often. If we assume that the goal of parenting is to have your children be succesful (analogous to what these studies do, although you could take different metrics in place of succesful if the studies would do the same thing) then children with bad parents would be less succesful by definition of bad parents. If we then measure unsuccesful children, children with bad parents, we find that unsuccesful children have been spanked more often. But then it's entirely possible to conclude that children are unsuccesful because they have bad parents and bad parents are more likely to spank their children. That doesn't mean the children being unsuccesful is causally connected to being spanked, as we can also conclude that them being unsuccesful is causally connected to them having bad parents, and being bad parents is correlated to spanking. So then the same two things we are measuring (succes and spanking) can be explained in two ways. In other words, we merely have a correlation and not a causation. It is literally impossible to correct for this statistically. Preferably you would account for bad parents in the measurement, but bad parents is equivalent to kids being succesful. In other words, to correct for this you would have to correct the correlation between children being succesful and being spanked for children being succesful and being spanked, which obviously leads to no result.

This is logic, not misunderstanding of statistics or of the researches conducted. I'm logically showing that you can't draw any other conclusion than that spanking and being less succesful in life are correlated. Yet, you want to claim that being spanked causes children to be less succesful in life is a fact. This is not a fact, this is the belief that one explanation for the correlation is correct based on no evidence. It would be equally legitemate to favor the other explanation based on the information that you have provided.

The clear problem is that it is impossible to point at a cause. Clearly, both approaches (bad parents are more likely to spank their children and children that have been spanked had bad parents) are equally valid, statistically speaking.


No.... they're not. Again, this is not how science or statistics work.

Yes, they are. You don't understand how science or statistics work.

And that is where I find contesting these sorts of researches very valid. Even if all the data was perfect (metaphysically one can always contest the data and the garantuee that they give for the future of course) then it is still impossible to conclude anything from it.


Please see above my post regarding confidence intervals.

Please read my post again and educate yourself about correlation and causation.

And then in these social studies, which merely look at likelyhood, we cant even conclude that spanking is always bad. Its not a valid conclusion, based on these researches that show merely a correlation between spanking and negative results for the kids, to conclude that spanking is always a bad thing to do. Thats like testing whether people prefer to write with their left or right hand, finding that people are statistically significantly more right handed and then concluding all people are right handed.


Sure, and not everybody who smokes gets lung cancer, it doesn't mean that you should smoke.

The difference here is in behaviour versus physical processes. Behaviour is, by nature, very different and the same thing might affect behaviour differently. The differences in how the human body works from human to human are far smaller, and thus a correlation between two things provides a much stronger evidence. Add to that that smoking is smoking, yet there are different ways to spank a child in different circumstances.

And thats where I think the main defense of spanking holds strong: what if a parent fails to apply techniques better than spanking and thus sees a kid consistently misbehave without the parent being able to adjust the kids behaviour? In that case it seems very much so possible that spanking, while a statistically bad way of raising a child, is actually going to have vastly more positive results than not spanking the kid.


I fail to see how violence inflicted by a family member is a better alternative than any other "consequence" that may occur from a misbehaving child. Violence is a terrible stain on our society that should be avoided at all costs. If what you say is true, then there should be studies showing that spanking children lead to positive outcomes. I challenge you to find a single one. If you can't, then please explain how it can sometimes be good if nobody has ever shown a relationship. Do you honestly believe that spanking is usually bad, but good when you do it?

How would one show the positive single case effect of spanking? To do so, one would have to seperate two twins, somehow make them showcase the exact same behaviour and punish them differently once, to then raise them equally and then, hypothetically, you can state if spanking was positive. But this seems practically impossible.

For your lack of 'imagination': Imagine a child growing up in an environment that might easily put them on a bad path in life. Imagine a parent that is not great at verbally adjusting the behaviour of this kid, but does have to ability to spank his child at times of very bad behaviour. This spanking could potentially learn the child a lesson that he wouldn't have learned otherwise (as the parent would have been unable to teach the child this lesson otherwise) which could make the difference between the child completing school and the child dropping out of school and becoming a criminal. This scenario can logically exist and there are many more hypothetical scenarios in which spanking can have a positive effect on the life of a child. Again, it's impossible to measure this, as you can't create two realities, but it is a possibly truth.

I have not honestly presented a view about spanking at all; you have failed to read comprehensively if you think so. I have only stated that, given all the evidence provided, it is possible that spanking can have a positive effect on a life, and that it is impossible to conclude that spanking is always a bad thing to do.

You cannot prove these point wrong with statistical researches I think. That'd logically be an impossibility. You can only choose to believe or prefer one of the two explanations.

I believe one conclusion that I believe can be drawn based on the researched is that it is probably wiser to try to raise your children without spanking and try to avoid spanking your children for as much as you get positive results using different methods. That would only seem wise.


Sure... that can be your conclusion. But the data proves quite consequentially that spanking your children will negatively affect their life.

We can argue about this non-stop, but at the end of the day, we are moving towards a world where violence against children is increasingly condemned.

Again, the data proves that there is a correlation between spanking and children having a less succesful life. That is not the same as that "the data proves quite consequentially that spanking your children will negatively affect their life." Sure, you can conclude that, but then you're reaching an incorrect conclusion. That's fine by me. We can argue non-stop about this, if you please, although I can assure you that I will give up after some amount of times where you fail to understand the evidence that you presented yourself.

I promise you that your children will remember that you beat them and will judge you by the standards of their adulthood.

This is an empty promise, as children will remember and judge many things by the standard of their adulthood. If you are trying to say, as a promise, that a child will judge his parents negatively for spanking them, then I can promise you that this does not have to be the case. I happen to be one of those childs that doesn't judge his parents negatively for spanking me but rather is grateful for them skewing my behaviour in a positive direction.

I please beg of you to show understanding of statistics in your next post. I know it's common to instantly assume that any scientific research is 'fact', but if you were taught to think critically you should be more aware of the shortcomings of scientific research and how it is in reality often very far from fact. You should have been taught to discriminate between correlation and causation properly.
France benj89
Howdah
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mar 11, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by benj89 »

chronojj wrote:just a few general comments...

Personal experience based on how you were raised means nothing, because everyone is different. I was spanked as a kid. I turned out great. I love my parents and respect authority. I was the top of my class from elementary school-university. I now have a successful career and a family - the American dream. Did spanking do all of that? No, of course not. There's a multitude of factors. My personal experience means nothing; neither does anyone else's - at least in trying to prove whether or not spanking is good. Additionally, anyone who doesn't have kids shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion on how to raise children. Reading books/taking classes/eating intelligence cubes does nothing to provide actual experience. Third, anyone can sit in an office and concoct studies/sit in front of a pc and prove things, but that doesn't provide anything concrete. Studies are just studies. It's silly to wallpaper the entire population based on a few tests. There can be some use to stuides, from a general, informational side of things. But everyone is different. Studying people and figuring out why they do what they do is practically impossible. A million different things happen to a person throughout their life; how can anyone judge what did/did not cause someone to do something. Sure there's always that one person that went through something ridiculous (and thus became what he became), but overall, a person becomes who he is based on a lifetime of experiences, in combination with how that person reacts (which is different for each person, because each person is different).

Is violence good? never. Key point: spanking is not equivalent to violence. Can spanking be good? Sure. Can it be bad? Sure. I have a three year old. My wife and I spank him from time to time. We also punish in different ways. What I've learned is there is no perfect answer. A spank can be great in one instance; the problem gets resolved. Other times, he can be spanked and 2 minutes later repeat what caused him to be spanked. Why did it work before and not this time? Why can I timeout him once and he fixes his behavior, then the next timeout he just repeats the offense? Who knows. I'm not him. And I'm not 3.

One thing we do is we spank with an object (a wood spatula), not our hands. I think that is important. Additionally, don't spank in anger. Children are very smart. They understand what's going on. They know the difference between getting spanked due to anger/getting spanked for appropriate punishment. Children also know what they do is wrong. They aren't innocent angels. They can be downright evil. I especially enjoy the "hey, don't touch that", followed by my son getting as close as he can without touching "that". Now he's purposely being a jerk (it's kind of funny in a way - but not when it's something hot).

I have some siblings who didn't spank their kids at all. I have some siblings who did spank their kids. So far all my nieces/nephews have turned out great. Parenting is much, much more than spanking.

Finally, does my experience with my son mean anything to anyone else. No. What works for us might not work for anyone else. It's all different. Just have to figure out what does/does not work - and hopefully not too late. My opinion means nothing - just like everyone else's in this thread. Long story short, there is no right or wrong answer. Proper parenting will most likely result in proper kids. Bad parenting will most likely result in bad kids. It's easy to point out a few things on either side of the spectrum; other stuff, it just depends.

Well most people don’t have kids here so that thread would be empty, but I agree that some people lack practicality and that parenting is much more than spanking (people are pretty quick to blame one thing), theory is all fine until reality hits you. It reminds me how most people know how to eat right and that it leads to better health and better life in general, yet most people eat like crap. Same goes for exercising, yet most people only do it for a week after new year’s resolutions. Same goes for discipline and work ethic with studies/work, yet…. and I could go on. I just hope the average person here will hold higher standards for their kid’s education than the ones they hold to themselves, so they won’t feel like fools later.

I also believe that personal experience has value in such a discussion, at the very least to better understand the complexity of human behavior.
Had a laugh at the downright evil. Hopefully my future wife will bring some angels genes and my future theories about proper education will work out on that part but haven't really much thought into it yet.
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Spanking

Post by deleted_user0 »

momuuu wrote:
umeu wrote:kids should also feel safe and loved in a classroom. In general, people are more willing to do things for a friend than for a "monster" they fear. Violence undermines authority, it doesn't convey it.

way to not understand a point.


Thank you for your very insightful contribution...
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Spanking

Post by Goodspeed »

lordraphael wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:If there was a significant causal relationship between being religious and decreased mental health or negative behaviours like violence, then yeah you could conclude that. I don't see how that would be "retarded".
Ive read my fair share of social studies ( as a teacher thats what you gotta do during your studies) and i kinda agree with jerom. The answers are pretty much always a "yes, but..." or a "no, but...."
and then they list all of the excpetions that deviate from their general answer essentially making their overall answer invalid because of all the exceptions they are mentioning.
Basically their answers to the questions at hand apply to only a very small minority of people making it stupid to conclude any major informations. (Altho i see potential in social studies which use the Big Data as source material, asssuming you gain enough informations relevant for the thesis at hand, the large sample size would make answers a lot more valid)
I wouldnt go as far as to say its comtpletly useless but not really helpful either.
There are good studies and bad studies. I've seen bad studies, I know what you mean, but that doesn't invalidate every study in the field. Science worked out ways to still draw valid conclusions based off data that isn't as black and white as 1+1=2. I'm sure you're well aware of that.
If you think these are bad studies, please elaborate. Have you read them?
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Spanking

Post by zoom »

You're a bad study!
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: Spanking

Post by Amsel_ »

zoom wrote:You're a bad study!

For you.
User avatar
Australia VooDoo_BoSs
Dragoon
Posts: 254
Joined: Jul 7, 2016
ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
Location: Australia

Re: Spanking

Post by VooDoo_BoSs »

momuuu wrote:
VooDoo_BoSs wrote:
momuuu wrote:It is literally impossible to conclude that spanking is per definition bad. Thats all I am and have been saying.


No. It is possible to conclude with 95% certainty in the event of a p>0.05. That is literally how statistics work. Any study that cites a "significant" relationship implies 95% confidence, and most of the studies published had 99% confidence levels. Go to scholar.google.com, and type in "spanking", and you will see, literally, hundreds of studies on this. If they have a p<0.05 value each (most will have p>0.01), the % likelihood of that study being incorrect is 5%. The chance that 100 studies are all incorrect is less than 1 in 10^131. That is a greater number of atoms than exist in the universe.

You fail to read properly. It's possible to conclude with 95% certainty that there is a correlation between spanking and people being less succesful in life. That is not the same as saying spanking is per definition bad. You are therefore claiming you can conclude something based on something that does not warrant that conclusion. The problem here is that the basic language is forming a definitive barrier between you and actual understanding. I cannot solve this problem unfortunately. If you thinking "spanking being per definition bad" is equivalent to "spanking being correlated to people being less succesful in life" then you are simply doing a poor job at reading. The unfortunate result is that you somehow assume I am unable to understand statistics while I am very aware of the ins and outs of statistics.

For one, how would you solve the possibility that you're inverting causes. Bad parents will see their kids be less succesful (which seems the only appropriate metric to determine bad parenting. But it seems entirely plausible that bad parents spank their kids more often. So then we could research that, and then obviously we find the same result but inversed. Unsuccesful kids are more likely to have been spanked.


They control for socioeconomic, cultural, education, geographical, etc. factors. There are, literally, hundreds of studies. Do you really want to claim they are all missing something?

You simply didn't understand my point, again due to poor reading. You can not control for the case I outlined, because you would literally be checking the same thing. I have asked you how you would even check for this explanation and you have not provided an answer to that; probably because you cannot think of one, which is because there is no way to check for that. I will try to rephrase this once again, in the hopes that you understand the point:

It could be possible that bad parents end up struggling to raise their children and then elect to spank their children more often. If we assume that the goal of parenting is to have your children be succesful (analogous to what these studies do, although you could take different metrics in place of succesful if the studies would do the same thing) then children with bad parents would be less succesful by definition of bad parents. If we then measure unsuccesful children, children with bad parents, we find that unsuccesful children have been spanked more often. But then it's entirely possible to conclude that children are unsuccesful because they have bad parents and bad parents are more likely to spank their children. That doesn't mean the children being unsuccesful is causally connected to being spanked, as we can also conclude that them being unsuccesful is causally connected to them having bad parents, and being bad parents is correlated to spanking. So then the same two things we are measuring (succes and spanking) can be explained in two ways. In other words, we merely have a correlation and not a causation. It is literally impossible to correct for this statistically. Preferably you would account for bad parents in the measurement, but bad parents is equivalent to kids being succesful. In other words, to correct for this you would have to correct the correlation between children being succesful and being spanked for children being succesful and being spanked, which obviously leads to no result.

This is logic, not misunderstanding of statistics or of the researches conducted. I'm logically showing that you can't draw any other conclusion than that spanking and being less succesful in life are correlated. Yet, you want to claim that being spanked causes children to be less succesful in life is a fact. This is not a fact, this is the belief that one explanation for the correlation is correct based on no evidence. It would be equally legitemate to favor the other explanation based on the information that you have provided.

The clear problem is that it is impossible to point at a cause. Clearly, both approaches (bad parents are more likely to spank their children and children that have been spanked had bad parents) are equally valid, statistically speaking.


No.... they're not. Again, this is not how science or statistics work.

Yes, they are. You don't understand how science or statistics work.

And that is where I find contesting these sorts of researches very valid. Even if all the data was perfect (metaphysically one can always contest the data and the garantuee that they give for the future of course) then it is still impossible to conclude anything from it.


Please see above my post regarding confidence intervals.

Please read my post again and educate yourself about correlation and causation.

And then in these social studies, which merely look at likelyhood, we cant even conclude that spanking is always bad. Its not a valid conclusion, based on these researches that show merely a correlation between spanking and negative results for the kids, to conclude that spanking is always a bad thing to do. Thats like testing whether people prefer to write with their left or right hand, finding that people are statistically significantly more right handed and then concluding all people are right handed.


Sure, and not everybody who smokes gets lung cancer, it doesn't mean that you should smoke.

The difference here is in behaviour versus physical processes. Behaviour is, by nature, very different and the same thing might affect behaviour differently. The differences in how the human body works from human to human are far smaller, and thus a correlation between two things provides a much stronger evidence. Add to that that smoking is smoking, yet there are different ways to spank a child in different circumstances.

And thats where I think the main defense of spanking holds strong: what if a parent fails to apply techniques better than spanking and thus sees a kid consistently misbehave without the parent being able to adjust the kids behaviour? In that case it seems very much so possible that spanking, while a statistically bad way of raising a child, is actually going to have vastly more positive results than not spanking the kid.


I fail to see how violence inflicted by a family member is a better alternative than any other "consequence" that may occur from a misbehaving child. Violence is a terrible stain on our society that should be avoided at all costs. If what you say is true, then there should be studies showing that spanking children lead to positive outcomes. I challenge you to find a single one. If you can't, then please explain how it can sometimes be good if nobody has ever shown a relationship. Do you honestly believe that spanking is usually bad, but good when you do it?

How would one show the positive single case effect of spanking? To do so, one would have to seperate two twins, somehow make them showcase the exact same behaviour and punish them differently once, to then raise them equally and then, hypothetically, you can state if spanking was positive. But this seems practically impossible.

For your lack of 'imagination': Imagine a child growing up in an environment that might easily put them on a bad path in life. Imagine a parent that is not great at verbally adjusting the behaviour of this kid, but does have to ability to spank his child at times of very bad behaviour. This spanking could potentially learn the child a lesson that he wouldn't have learned otherwise (as the parent would have been unable to teach the child this lesson otherwise) which could make the difference between the child completing school and the child dropping out of school and becoming a criminal. This scenario can logically exist and there are many more hypothetical scenarios in which spanking can have a positive effect on the life of a child. Again, it's impossible to measure this, as you can't create two realities, but it is a possibly truth.

I have not honestly presented a view about spanking at all; you have failed to read comprehensively if you think so. I have only stated that, given all the evidence provided, it is possible that spanking can have a positive effect on a life, and that it is impossible to conclude that spanking is always a bad thing to do.

You cannot prove these point wrong with statistical researches I think. That'd logically be an impossibility. You can only choose to believe or prefer one of the two explanations.

I believe one conclusion that I believe can be drawn based on the researched is that it is probably wiser to try to raise your children without spanking and try to avoid spanking your children for as much as you get positive results using different methods. That would only seem wise.


Sure... that can be your conclusion. But the data proves quite consequentially that spanking your children will negatively affect their life.

We can argue about this non-stop, but at the end of the day, we are moving towards a world where violence against children is increasingly condemned.

Again, the data proves that there is a correlation between spanking and children having a less succesful life. That is not the same as that "the data proves quite consequentially that spanking your children will negatively affect their life." Sure, you can conclude that, but then you're reaching an incorrect conclusion. That's fine by me. We can argue non-stop about this, if you please, although I can assure you that I will give up after some amount of times where you fail to understand the evidence that you presented yourself.

I promise you that your children will remember that you beat them and will judge you by the standards of their adulthood.

This is an empty promise, as children will remember and judge many things by the standard of their adulthood. If you are trying to say, as a promise, that a child will judge his parents negatively for spanking them, then I can promise you that this does not have to be the case. I happen to be one of those childs that doesn't judge his parents negatively for spanking me but rather is grateful for them skewing my behaviour in a positive direction.

I please beg of you to show understanding of statistics in your next post. I know it's common to instantly assume that any scientific research is 'fact', but if you were taught to think critically you should be more aware of the shortcomings of scientific research and how it is in reality often very far from fact. You should have been taught to discriminate between correlation and causation properly.


You have no idea how statistics work.

I have, literally, a degree in mathematics & statistics (Bachelor's).

There are thousands of free courses online on statistics and scientific method. You keep talking about how you can't "control" for those factors - you can and that is the whole point of statistics. What you are referring to are called "confounding variables".

What is more likely, that ALL of these scientific studies are wrong and momuu is right, or that momuu is wrong and people who have decades and millions of dollars to research this complicated issue may be right.

I think it takes enormous arrogance to say they are all wrong and you are right.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Spanking

Post by gibson »

Momuuuu> science.....Btw can you guys do something about that horrible quote tunnel? Make it a spoiler perhaps?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV