Jesus Christ (real or not?)

" Early experiments had shown that pain elicits reflexive aggression.7 In an early modeling study,8 boys in grade one who had watched a one-minute video of a boy being yelled at, shaken and spanked with a paddle for misbehaving showed more aggression while playing with dolls than boys who had watched a one-minute video of nonviolent responses to misbehaviour."

First of all this is just stupid. Watching a one minute video "elicits aggression." By their **** little studies logic, watching an X-Men cartoon on television likely "elicits aggression." Eliciting a little aggression in a child for a moment isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact we all need a little aggression, otherwise we will have very little will-power to get up and handle responsibilities throughout the day.

Here is the psychiatrical definition of the word "aggression", that they are constantly using to manipulate the opinions of the readers: Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.

These scientists were obviously biased when they made this study. So what if the little boys played with their toys a little more aggressively.

" In a treatment study, Forgatch showed that a reduction in harsh discipline used by parents of boys at risk for antisocial behaviour was followed by significant reductions in their children’s aggression.9 These and other findings spurred researchers to identify the mechanisms linking physical punishment and child aggression."

They did not say anything about the treatment study, or how they came to this conclusion. And the scientists already seem to be biased, so this paragraph was irrelevant.


"By the 1990s, it was recognized that the method by which causality is typically shown in scientific studies — the randomized control trial — had limited application for studying the physical punishment of children. "

Ok. Thank you very much for admitting that. Sounds like everything they said before this paragraph must have been nonsense then, the reason they even mentioned it baffles me. Maybe it was to sway public opinion by using words like "elicit aggression" like that even actually matters.

"they cannot be used to study the effect of imposing such punishment because it would be unethical to assign children to a group receiving painful treatment when research suggests that such pain poses harm not outweighed by potential benefit. The few existing randomized control trials showed that physical punishment was no more effective than other methods in eliciting compliance. In one such study, an average of eight spankings in a single session was needed to elicit compliance, and there was “no support for the necessity of the physical punishment."

Ok, in one study they spanked the kid 8 times before those kinds of studies were forbidden to be used.

" The few existing randomized control trials showed that physical punishment was no more effective than other methods in eliciting compliance"

How so, they don't seem to ever tell how they came to their conclusions. They seem to be basically saying, "take my word for it, I'm a scientist." Sorry bruh, a scientist can be biased if he wants to. This is like telling me to trust Fox News, because its the news. If he wants to make a claim he needs to state what evidence he has to support that claim, or state what experiment he did to come to the conclusion he came to. This sounds awful propogandaish. And I never fall for propaganda.

"One of the first large prospective studies (1997, n = 807) controlled for initial levels of child antisocial behaviour and sex, family socioeconomic status and levels of emotional support and cognitive stimulation in the home.11 Even with these controls, physical punishment between the ages of six and nine years predicted higher levels of antisocial behaviour two years later. Subsequent prospective studies yielded similar results, whether they controlled for parental age, child age, race and family structure;12 poverty, child age, emotional support, cognitive stimulation, sex, race and the interactions among these variables;13 or other factors.14–17 These studies provide the strongest evidence available that physical punishment is a risk factor for child aggression and antisocial behaviour."

This is complete utter stupidity. For one, once again they don't tell you how they did the study or the experiment. and they are not even allowed to experiment by actually spanking children. they don't tell you what anti-social behaviors the children exhibited, or did not exhibit. They don't say how many children they studied, where they pulled their random samples from. They don't even mention confounding variables that could affect the results of the study, like the peers the children hung out with etc. If anything it sounds to me more like the scientists controlled the study to get the outcome desired, judging by how biased they seemed to be in the beginning.

"Higher levels of antisocial behavioEven with these controls, physical punishment between the ages of six and nine years predicted higher levels of antisocial behaviour two years later."

r compared to who might I ask? They don't mention that either. Higher levels than a child that doesn't even exist?

"A landmark meta-analysis published in 200218 showed that of 27 studies on physical punishment and child aggression conducted up to that time (that met the criteria of the meta-analysis), all found a significant positive relation, regardless of the size of the sample, location of study, ages of the children or any other variable. Almost all adequately designed studies conducted since that meta-analysis have found the same relation.19–23 In a randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to reduce difficult child behaviours,24 parents in more than 500 families were trained to decrease their use of physical punishment. The significant parallel decline seen in the difficult behaviours of children in the treatment group was largely explained by the parents’ reduction in their use of physical punishment. Together, results consistently suggest that physical punishment has a direct causal effect on externalizing behaviour, whether through a reflexive response to pain, modeling or coercive family processes."


(whether through a reflexive response to pain) see how they play with words.
modeling (you mean children that get spanked become models like tyra banks? Sorry why do they mean by modeling?) or coercive family processes.



"By 2000, research on physical punishment had expanded beyond its effect on child aggression. "

thank God because that study was practically worthless.

"One of the first such studies25 linked slapping and spanking in childhood with psychiatric disorders in adulthood in a large Canadian sample, and its findings have since been supported by an ever-growing number of studies. Physical punishment is associated with a range of mental health problems in children, youth and adults, including depression, unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, use of drugs and alcohol, and general psychological maladjustment"

Once again, they make these claims but do not tell you how they did the studies or experiment. Is it there little secret?


"These relationships may be mediated by disruptions in parent–child attachment resulting from pain inflicted by a caregiver,30,31 by increased levels of cortisol32 or by chemical disruption of the brain’s mechanism for regulating stress"


Once again, how did they come to these conclusions? This is a very mysterious article. And I can gurantee you as a person that was spanked as a child, that this it's not stressful at all. At least not nearly stressful enough to throw off your brain chemistry. If that were the case than everyone would be mentally ill because they have a job, and jobs can be stressful.

I can't read this whole article because they simply leave out too much information and basically tell you, " Hey, trust me. I know what I'm talking about."

But I read about 90 percent of it, but they are going to have to give more information if they are going to convince me. I've been burned by propaganda before, and I refuse to fall for it again. On the other hand, I found an article that claims these scientific studies to be complete crap.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/debate-over-spanking-short-science-high-emotion
I haven't read this article, but why don't you take a look at it. I think I'm going to give my brain a rest for now.

 

I apologize, I do not know how to quote from other websites. All I know how to do is put the parts I wanted to provide commentary on in quotations.

 

quick answer - No, there's no real proof.
longer answer - Does it really matter, lots of people have mental illnesses, just because one got taken seriously for a while, doesn't mean we should waste anymore of our limited time and effort on a failed religious / social experiment.

Embrace the enlightenment.

 

I tried, it did not work Simon. I couldn't figure out how to do it based on what you told me.

 

Then how is it an effective punishment? Isn't it supposed to be stressful?

Anyway, it was a summary of research, not a research paper itself. If you want to know more about how the studies were conducted the references are there.

I'm sure it is difficult to tease apart factors in studies such as these, but you find me one piece of research that shows hitting children improves behaviour and I'll mail you a cookie.

From the article you linked to:

"Aside from potential damage that spanking might cause kids, there is still the question of whether it actually makes a child behave. Is spanking way better than other types of discipline? The answer might depend on how you spank, an analysis of other studies suggests. A spank as a last resort, to discipline a kid who keeps escaping time-out, for instance, seems to get better results than other discipline techniques. But when spanking is the go-to discipline measure or when it’s severe, it becomes less effective than other techniques. Most parents who spank probably fall somewhere between these two extremes, and for them, spanking seems to work about as well as other methods of punishment, the results suggest.

[...]

Now that I’m a parent, the idea of anyone, including me, hitting my 19-month-old daughter makes me cringe. Without any regard for what science says, I simply can’t rationalize a big person hitting a small, helpless one to teach them how to act. What’s more, children learn by watching what their parents do, not by listening to what they say. (Remember how lying to kids makes them lie more? Why would hitting be any different?)"

If hitting children is, at best, only as good as alternative methods of discipline, why do it?

 

sparring hurts, but you do it because it makes you a more effective fighter. ................or is sparring wrong, because it .....................hurts a little.

 

sparring is not a form of punishment but you see where I'm going with this right?

 

Stupid argument is stupid.

Sparring is consensual.

Next point please.

 

Ok then by your logic everything you do with your kids has to be consensual. You can't force your child to go to his room or anything. No form of punishment for your children is consensual. Otherwise your children would just not listen to you.

 

Look no ones pretending that bringing up kids is an exact science. It's full of trials and tribulations, wrong steps, things you regret, things you find that work, things that don't.

I've outlined why I think physically striking a small defenseless person because they aren't behaving as you want (and in some cases what you want is quite arbitrary really) is wrong.

Here's a parenting tip....kids don't listen to you. Not much any way. Parenting is like trying to steer a remote control clown car with someone else in the driving seat. You just try your best to steer it in the right direction and hope for the best.

 

You keep attacking other people's logic. Yet using the logic and reasoning from your arguments about Jesus and Christianity, one could make an equally compelling argument for Santa Claus. Maybe even better. We have proof that Saint Nicholas existed. Do you have proof that he did not come back as Santa Claus after his death?

 

No, that is not my logic. Yours has run its course, it would seem.

 

What?!

Now you're telling me that Santa's not real?

The whole world's turned upside down, I just don't know what to believe anymore :cry:

 

IMHO raising a child is like raising a dog.
It used to be choke chains, smacking, kicking, rubbing noses in it, rolled up newspaper, etc.
Then it went into the ignore bad behaviour and reward good. No physical punishment at all.
Now it's more gone into (because of someone like Cesar Milan, who, although his methods have been criticised has a sound underpinning of how to get the best out of a dog) rewarding and encouraging good behaviour while ALSO setting boundaries, routines and expected behaviour and fulfilling basic needs (food, exercise, stimulation, play, love, etc). Much closer to the second stage rather than the first stage though.
Bring up a child in the third way I think is the way to go.

 

No, that is your logic.
You said it's WRONG because it is not a consensual punishment. It's not a consensual punishment to tell them they cannot play outside either. It's not consensual when you tell your child they can't go over to that weird old man's house down the street because you don't trust him. Or was that not your argument. If not. You obviously must believe that if the parent prevents his/her child from going to that man's house, then the parent must be charged with kidnapping. Because technically that is what you are doing since it's not "consensual." It's a shame when you can't even make your children not go outside, or hang with strange people or you will be charged with kidnapping. But the world is getting more and more politically correct, even to the point of insanity.

I suppose since parents who spank their children should be charged with assult and parents that don't let their kids go outside be charged with kidnapping.

 

Hahah...I could see that coming a mile off. It's political correctness gone mad! You can't even whack your kids anymore!

 

Again I repeat - Neve have kids

 

As much as I hate people accusing me of that. Mainly right wing conservative nut jobs. I had to because I think it applies.....