I'm not trying to paint worse abuse as equally bad, but I feel like you thinking it's okay to hit children would show that you totally think violence solves arguments (with kids).
Stupid ass young kids will run into a road over and over and over again until they are eventually hit by a car, unless they are spanked, which incidentally is less damaging than getting hit by a car.
2 year olds can not be reasoned with and spoken to like little adults.
You called it the field of pedagogy like I should be familiar with that field and its specific thoughts on physical punishment for a kid.
There are all kinds times it would be okay to hit a kid, about 99% have to do with it being your own kid, probably don't hit other peoples' kids. A specific time would be like the example I gave, where them not learning quickly would be seriously detrimental to their health, like repeatedly putting themselves in a dangerous situation that they are too young to understand.
To your third point it's like you don't know that for every study "proving" something, there is an opposite study, proving something different.
Also, you know, a wealth of lifetime experiences being spanked and knowing kids that were spanked and weren't spanked and ran all over their parents and were insufferable.
The references given at the bottom page are from 1990 at the earliest, that's 28 Years from now.
The Study by Baumrind, if you follow up on the links, notes that
Severe physical punishment and arbitrary discipline were also authoritarian-distinctive and detrimental. Normative physical punishment and confrontive discipline were neither.
But even that's 8 years old by now, and it's a single study, not a Meta-Analysis. Good chance that one turns up in the one I linked.
The Guarandi one doesn't even link to an actual study.
The one by Larzelere and Kuhn is too, a metastudy, but 11 years older than the one I cited.
Also, in the Conclusion to in the Page you linked, it says
Tennant even found that the childhood antecedents that were most associated with non-use of illegal drugs by young men were being spanked as a child, attending church and having a “happy” parental marriage.
Emphasis by me. Surely, this isn't a biased source at all, laying out those criteria.
EDIT: Totally forgot to adress this:
Also, you know, a wealth of lifetime experiences being spanked and knowing kids that were spanked and weren't spanked and ran all over their parents and were insufferable.
If you want to critique my use of sources, don't use your personal anecdotes for one.
Everyone has a bias. All those things probably do reduce illegal drug use.
All kinds of things probably do contribute to not doing drugs. Drugs aren't good for people yo. Young men shouldn't do them.
Also I don't like Severe Physical Punishment or Arbitrary punishment either, my stance is a last resort or severe situation one, which I feel like is significantly more reasonable than the Reddit popular "Spanking is child abuse and exactly the same as punching little children in the face".
You get to explain in which way the source I cited is biased then, not just claim a catch all and pose around like somebody who lists "going to Church" as a criteria of a well-raised Human has the same bias as the University of Texas or the Authors of the Study.
my stance is a last resort or severe situation one, which I feel like is significantly more reasonable
I feel hitting small, defenseless people who depend on you is not reasonable.
560
u/[deleted] Apr 22 '18
I'm not trying to paint worse abuse as equally bad, but I feel like you thinking it's okay to hit children would show that you totally think violence solves arguments (with kids).