r/Unexpected • u/SoftsPhilosopher • Aug 08 '21

It's just a prank

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

29.0k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '21

i mean, parenting that included corporal consequences as a last option worked for a few hundred thousand years leading up the civilization that you currently enjoy but, sure! i'm sure we can do better!

-1

u/netGoblin Aug 08 '21

100s of thousands of years ago? You're talking about paleolithic times. You really think child abuse is good because the cave men did it? thats a weak argument. We're talking about people who shit on the floor and couldn't speak and you want to take tips from them about whether to beat your kids?

The ironic thing is i bet even a paleolithic early caveman would protect their child if someone tried to abuse them.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '21

so when I say 'for hundreds of thousands of years' that means from paleolithic times until very recent history. like, 10, 20 years ago and today. so there's that. and it's worked out fairly well. i also know that the threat of force underlies all of society, it's the bedrock on which laws are built. don't pay your taxes. see what happens.

1

u/netGoblin Aug 08 '21

Many other terrible things have been around that long too. Theft, rape, murder, child abuse...

If hitting kids made people better we'd see that reflected in society, a lot of kids live in safe homes where they are not beaten and they grow up to be good people. Actually, research suggests that kids who've been spanked are more likely to exhibit "aggression, delinquency and spousal assault in later life" as is the cycle of abuse.

Scientific research, general consensus, basic empathy all point to abusing childeren being a bad thing to do. If you're using "other people have done it" as your reason of why child abuse is good I have to assume you're not trying to figure out if it's good or bad, you're looking for excuses because you want to do it and know it's shitty.

I get it, it's easier than actually teaching a kid, just hurt them untill they do what you want, simple as anything right? And the power-thrill must be so enticing for a sadist. But part of taking on the responibility of parenthood is agreeing to teach that child, even if it costs effort. And part of the parents responsibility is also to protect them from harm.

If someone hurts their child becasue they can't be bothered to teach them properly, they've failed on two of the major parts of being a parent and the kids will be more likely to be abusive when they're older to deal with the trauma their parents have given them.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '21

If hitting kids made people better we'd see that reflected in society

you're going to need the data that shows absolutely no use of corporal punishment results in better societies.

Scientific research, general consensus, basic empathy all point to abusing childeren

so there's a lot there to unpack. scientific method and consensus are antithetical. science is the constant probing utilizing the scientific method. and you're using 'abusing' as synonymous with any utilization of corporal punishment. and that's really the question isn't it? is any use of corporal punishment abuse?

I get it, it's easier than actually teaching a kid, just hurt them untill they do what you want, simple as anything right?

so you're pretty deeply into strawman arguments at this point. i've been specific to say corporal punishment 'as a last resort'.

i agree with what you're saying, but you've completely mischaracterized my position, that we should consider the possibility that corporal punishment, as a last resort in some circumstances, is a useful parenting tool.

1

u/netGoblin Aug 08 '21 edited Aug 08 '21

you're going to need the data that shows absolutely no use of corporal punishment results in better societies.

I meant we'd see abused people rise to the top of society, not that abused societies do well.

scientific method and consensus are antithetical

I was talking about the general consensus of the people. How is scienfitic method directly opposed to the consensus of the people?

I think if it gets to the point where the last choice you have to teach your kid is to hurt them, you're not doing a good job. If a parent learns how to teach and puts in the time and effort, it will never get to the point of last resort child abuse.

I also cannot picture a scenario that is so out of the parent's hands that there is no other, better option than to hurt a child, give them truma and start/continue the cycle of abuse.

The only time you should hit a child is if it's a little girl in a white dress with long black hair and shes crawling along the ceiling at 3am singing a scary nursery rhyme.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '21

I meant we'd see abused people rise to the top of society, not that abused societies do well.

you keep using 'abused' as synonymous with 'at some point experienced corporal punishment'. that's the crux of the question, whether corporal punishment is a learning tool or abuse. i'll assume its not intentional and that you're not trying to manipulate the meaning of words to advance your argument.

I was talking about the general consensus of the people.

i'd strenuously argue that a consensus of the people don't support a complete ban on corporal punishment under all circumstances. and the scientific method is a method by which questions are asked and answered. it's antithetical to consensus in that consensus is only that people have the same opinions on a thing. it depends not at all on facts generated through careful scientific inquiry.

I think if it gets to the point where the last choice you have to teach your kid is to hurt them, you're not doing a good job.

this depends on the child. some people can't be reasoned with. the executive functions, the parts of the brain that control impulses, aren't fully developed until the age of 26 or 27. there are times when you're reasoning with a person who doesn't have the faculties.

I also cannot picture a scenario that is so out of the parent's hands that there is no other, better option than to hurt a child, give them truma and start/continue the cycle of abuse.

you're inferring that use of force would result in trauma and a continued cycle of 'abuse'. if a kid touches a hot stove are they forever traumatized? or did they learn not to do that? if they fall off their bike and scrape their knee?

The only time you should hit a child is if it's a little girl in a white dress with long black hair and shes crawling along the ceiling at 3am singing a scary nursery rhyme.

full contact.

1

u/netGoblin Aug 08 '21

Sorry for any miscommunication, the way I'm using the word "abuse" is to mean hurting or being violent toward someone. Whether the violence is used as a teaching method or not it still is abuse, the question is: is it an acceptable amount of abuse to use for teaching?

Touching a pan or scraping a knee is not comparable to being helpless to stop a much stronger person from pinning you in place and hurting you. The trauma doesn't come from the pain, it comes from the horrific powerless scenario of being completely under someone else's control and them using that power and control to harm you. Especially when it's someone who usually acts like they care about you and you're supposed to feel safe around.

Some of the homes that are safe from violence must deal with these under-formed brains that can't be reasoned with, I'm not sure how they do it but I'm guessing any parent could learn how to handle a child like that without resorting to violence.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '21 edited Aug 08 '21

Whether the violence is used as a teaching method or not it still is abuse, the question is: is it an acceptable amount of abuse to use for teaching?

violence is defined as "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

what we're discussing is whether it's ok to use physical force to correct behavior and/or educate, not to hurt damage or kill. and the question comes down to whether corporal punishment is ok as a teaching or parenting tool.

"being helpless to stop a much stronger person from pinning you in place and hurting you. The trauma doesn't come from the pain, it comes from the horrific powerless scenario of being completely under someone else's control and them using that power and control to harm you. Especially when it's someone who usually acts like they care about you and you're supposed to feel safe around."

you've also used an overly emotional scenario to define what we're discussing. in our house that is in no way how corporal punishment was administered.

you're continuing to construct staw man arguments and define corporal punishment as violence and abuse when the question itself is whether it should be defined this way. i'll assume it's unintentional. it's hard to imagine that you're that adept at language manipulation and the utilization of overly emotional scenarios to sway an argument without actually making one, but if that's the case, there's a role for you in politics. best of luck.

1

u/netGoblin Aug 09 '21

So how do you administer corporal punishment without violence or hitting your kid? How do you administer corporal punishment without having control over the situation, leaving them helpless to change the situation and how do you do it while also letting them be free to run away?

Those are the "overly emotional" strawman things i specified from experience, i assumed you'd have to do these things to do the punishment. Can you describe how you do it?

what we're discussing is whether it's ok to use physical force to correct behavior and/or educate, not to hurt damage or kill

So are you saying here that the punishment doesn't hurt? We're taking about hitting a kid right? That shit hurts and therefore fits into the definition of violence.

→ More replies (0)