Good vid but you seem to have assumed at the end that all hitting is a result of a lack of self control, or the result of anger or emotionality/tiredness.
I can't believe I'm just now seeing this video, but I have something I want to say. I was looking at Jack's response and his comments. He is trying to get you to prove who has the correct interpretation when that isn't even the issue. The video was showing the cognitive dissonance that exists with bible interpretations and all of the justified behavior it encompasses. You proving what the correct interpretation is is irrelevant. Great video. Did you ever see the blogtv discussion I put up?
The biggest problem with me agreeing with the non-violence parental enforcement line( spanking = beating) is that I have to somehow admit that the one time I was spanked somehow damaged me psychologically.
I don't think it did. But I feel an unfairness about calling me out on confirmation bias and then assuming the opposite -- that I am somehow screwed up. That's rude. How am I to agree with that statement? My ego won't allow it.
Spanking is a component cause, not a sufficient cause. A probabilistic effect, not a deterministic one. You were probably not exposed to the same environment in other ways as the kids who developed problems.
One thing I don't understand is how Christians rectify 'absolute truth' between the time that God supposedly changed his mind and when those changes were put into scripture, ie many christians say 'well, not in the new testament' Could God be in the process of changing his mind again (on any number of things), as we speak, but he just hasn't written it down yet? If so, could christians following their adopted new testament guidelines be acting immoral from their own absolutist viewpoint?
It's funny how Christians want to excuse Jesus from OLD LAWS, yet how come he never stated clearly, GUYS GUYS GUYS!All this nonsense in the OLD TESTAMENT on how to treat your slaves, women, children, others, YOU NEED TO FORGET ABOUT IT! From now on, this is what you are going to do. Unfortunately NONE of this can be found in the NT, but shit you will find will be more like "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
.... ok, so you don't let there be a distinction between beating and spanking. Even though the word "beat" has a much different and more severe connotation than spank...
Remember you didn't do the same for the word "mutilate" in circumcision.
The "other people" mutilate their child's genitals, you just gave a small cut.
You always say that correlation does not imply causation, but here you seem to be doing it for spanking and behavior issues/agression etc.
You'll notice that I generally use the term "corporal punishment", which is a neutral, objective term. It includes in it the activities of beating, hitting and spanking, which are all subjective terms used for emotional shading. There's no way to objectively differentiate between hitting and beating.
Calling circumcision "genital mutilation" is an emotional shading term like "beating". You can use it if you want, but it's mostly good for shock value.
You clearly do see that "beating" is an emotionally charged word, yet still think it's objective to use it in regards to "spanking"?
Although not always, it implies some object is being used. It implies a greater amount of force/violence.
I just fail to see how such subjectivity, can be intellectually honest.
Why not use "strike"? It is still emotional, but doesn't imply the same level of violence. You seem to be equating the person talking to police to every spanking
You clearly do see that "beating" is an emotionally charged word, yet still think it's objective to use it in regards to "spanking"?
Although not always, it implies some object is being used. It implies a greater amount of force/violence.
I just fail to see how such subjectivity, can be intellectually honest.
Why not use "strike"? It is still emotional, but doesn't imply the same level of violence. You seem to be equating the person talking to police to every spanking
@ryoshi100 - You did notice that he had said he read studies on the issue. Do you not think it likely that he had gain this opinion from reading these studies? I suspect that is indeed why he holds the opinion he does.
He read studies, yet he chose to use the words "link" and "associated with". It isn't what he says, it what people here. Using correlations as part of your argument without any kind of qualitative data to support it is kind of misleading.
Lets also remember that anti-vaccine people often use correlations without any numbers. "This ingredient is associated with etc etc"
You are just picking apart the words he uses. Why is that? Do you honestly have an issue with the way he's said things - Do you honestly think it matters if someone uses emotionally charged words in a video that is expressing their personal opinions?
Conc0rdance is a scientist, but he does not have to speak with complete objectivity constantly, and there is no reason he should have to in this instance, he's expressing an opinion, not a scientific review of evidence.
@PurpleGhost Rhetoric matters to me. And although I have not completed my education, I consider myself a scientist too. (Biotechnology, the University of Nebraska @ Omaha)
Why do you seem soo invested in what I should or shouldn't be bothered by? Why should I blindly accept an opinion when it is "an opinion". I cannot in good faith pretend to not see what's there. Take your heart off your sleeve, you don't owe me such transparency. I'm just an internet person :3
@ryoshi100 I am invested, in being curious, it is a part of myself that I can not 'turn off'. Internet people, are still people. ;)
Neither he, nor I, have suggested that you blindly accept this opinion. But your not actually questioning the opinion, you are questioning the method through which he expressed it, the words he chose. (because rhetoric matters to you) - I'd like to point out, there is a difference. Accepting someone using whatever words, is not accepting the opinion they represent.
@ryoshi100 - Incidentally, even if it is misleading, what is the worst possible way this information could be taken? That people are inclined to believe, that if they spank their children, that they will be doing them harm?
Well that is a possibility, it begs the question, what does not spanking your children do? Well, given there are other ways to discipline (even physical ways that are non-violent, such as picking them up and putting them in their room) so what is lost? I think nothing.
We all know negative reinforcement isn't good. People who insist its good need only to use his common sense and stop reading this 2k old plagiarized fairy tale book. Better yet try it on your dog. Kick your dog each time it does something wrong.
I'm curious to know which specific criticisms this video actually addresses? I don't recall the criticisms being that the clip was 'dishonest.' The fact is, as Dprjones admitted himself, on the Fridaynightroundtable he saw little reason to "bend over backwards to give a balanced approach."
1. "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." - Ooooh I'm using that.
2. "I'm not an anti-theist". - I am. But it's a bit like a abortion for me. I genuinely think it's wrong; but, I've made my choice, and I don't see a basis for me to deny that choice to other people. Instead I share my opinion and hope I can be persuasive.
My issue with the attached video is simple. It is "sensational" in the worst of the word -- in the sense of sensationalism -- in the sense of editing together two fundamentally unrelated videos *not* to enlighten or educate but to produce a purely emotional effect.
Everything that you say about corporal punishment might be true. It might very well *not* be the optimal way to raise one's children. It may be that there's never a reason to strike a child.
(cont'd) (2) But given that corporal punishment was not only considered normal parenting but was normal even in the context of schooling -- teachers would also use corporal punishment on misbehaving children -- it is difficult to accept the assessment that every incident of an adult, including a parent, using corporal punishment on a child rises to the level of child abuse (which is a crime) -- and there are, in fact, those who have and do make exactly that claim.
(cont'd) (3) And when you have a video that intercuts between parents who talk about corporal punishment and make the point that they have never struck their children hard enough to even leave a bruise -- and then cut to the bodies of children who have literally been beaten to death, the message that is being sent, namely that the former behavior and the latter is essentially comparable -- is both clear -- and false.
And that is true even if you consider those parents to be dead wrong.
@prodprod I think the "message" that you got from the video is nothing more then a figment of your imagination. Either that or you just find strawmen a little easier to deal with then the actual argument put forth.
@fortyone0 For that to be so -- for it to merely be a figment of my imagination, implies that the editing of the video in question to to what -- coincidental? Arbitrary? Not intended to serve any particular purpose?
Whatever the argument may be against corporal punishment, per se -- intercutting between parents who practice corporal punishment and parents who've beaten their children to death *doesn't constitute an argument," It's simply an appeal to emotion.
@prodprod Wow. You do know what a "promo" is right? The video didn't make an argument. It introduced a topic. The editing showed the reason the topic was being discussed as well as some of the views of Christians here on Youtube on the subject. This is not a difficult concept. Any other meaning you got out of it is your own not theirs.
@fortyone0 With all due respect, the video in question was not content neutral. It certainly had a point of view -- which is fine. It's fine for the Christians portrayed to have their point of view regarding corporal punishment, whether justified or not and it's fine for the video, call it a promo or anything else, to comment on it. But certain forms of commentary have weight in the context of a reasoned debate and others don't.
(cont'd) (2) Suggesting that my reaction was somehow merely subjective and had no relation to the editorial choices of the maker of the original piece are, I'm afraid, ingenuous in the extreme, as it ought to be clear to anybody watching that video, that the reactions produced are precisely those intended by it's maker.
You might as well cut between a shot of a Catholic church and a swastika and say -- Oh, if you think the video is aiming at creating an emotional reaction -- that's just you.
Somebody who condemn others for beating their children and then, in the same breath, say that he beats his own but with care and love is a 1st grade hypocrite. Beat you kid is ONLY taking out your own personal frustration on the kid and will teach the kid that this is OK to do.
As a parent you are the grown up, the wise that have learned self control and if you want your children to learn that you better show it.
Hey, if someone accuses you of quote mining and taking stuff out of context, they're always free to make a video response that provides the proper context, right?
Don't hold your breath waiting for that "proper context" to be presented though. It's not coming, because you're completely right.
Well, I wont say you're wrong, Concordance, but I will disagree with you on the spanking issue. I dont deny it is a form of violence, that you could call it beating, but at the same time, I wont discount its effectiveness either, when used with restraint. The issue for me is that I've seen its effectiveness when compared with non-violent alternatives.
Children between 2 and 6 generally have fairly poor reasoning skills, so many non-violent alternatives like time-out simply dont get through.
A willful child at a certain age cannot be reasoned with, simply because their reasoning skills are not yet developed to that point.
As much as it might seem unpopular to say it, sometimes obedience to authority is necessary, even if you dont understand the reason (as when a child is three years old and doesnt understand that the stove will hurt them). As an adult it's different, but when a child is about to do something dangerous, a non-violent talking to may not discourage them in time.
If done properly, the spanking isnt even necessary, so much as just the threat of one. Thus, when you say to your child "Dont touch that", and they ignore your warning, a raised hand, with the implication if immediate and painful consequences, will achieve the desired response swiftly and without injury, whereas a child accustomed to non-violent warnings may consider the punishment less undesirable, and may simply ignore it.
This is Punishment, after all. It's supposed to be unpleasant.
Now I realize anecdotes are not proper evidence, but ignoring that for now, I compare my own upbringing to that of my nephew, as an example.
My mother had a 1 2 3 spank warning system, as a general rule (forgoing the 1 2 3 in severe cases). More often than not, by 2, she'd get the desired response from me.
My stepfather, who is chiefly raising my nephew, is more or less non-spanking. He tends toward non-violent solutions, and as a result, my nephew often blatantly ignores multiple warnings.
The reason being, he's five years old, and without the reasoning capacity of an adult, he sees no immediate negative consequence to his actions, and therefor feels free to continue doing as he pleases after repeated warnings.
Now when he's older, and more capable of reasoning, this may change, but for right now, this is a dangerous situation, because if he is warned not to do something that may hurt him, there is a good chance that he will ignore that warning, for lack of a visible consequence.
At his age, my reasoning skills were little better, but I did at least understand that, regardless of the consequences of whatever action I was about to undertake, whether it be running across the street or touching a frying pan, when my mother said One, Two, I was about to get a slap, and that was all that mattered at the time.
I understand fully NOW why she did it, but at the time, it wasnt important for me to understand why, the important thing was that I OBEYED, for fear of consequences.
Now yes, this is certainly a power which can be abused, but so is anything, if done irresponsibly. You can abuse a pointer laser and blind someone, but does that mean we should ban pointer lasers?
Spanking is an effective deterrent against undesirable behavior in children at young ages, when reasoning is difficult or impossible due to the child's own mental non-development. You may not be able to explain the danger of a live electrical wire, but a child will understand 'smack'.
Thus, I personally support spanking, within reason, as an effective means of deterrence.
Pain is one of the most deep and primordial sensations in the animal brain, deeply connected to memory, and is immediately recognizable and undesirable to all forms of life capable of experiencing it. Even in a young child, incapable of deep thought or deductive reasoning, the threat of a smack is effective. He doesnt have to understand why now. He'll understand when he's older, like you and I do now.
Consider the trust in the parent-child relationship. Could striking a child harm that trust? Does it demonstrate the power of violence? What kind of a person are you raising with CP? One who takes risks?
I'd recommend you look into positive discipline (PD), which is the current model favored by a lot of child psychologists. It requires more effort on the part of the parent, but has very strong evidence of success in childhood and beyond.
I want you to understand that it's not just a personal conviction against CP. It's the fact that it doesn't work well when measured empirically. It has undesired consequences in a percentage of cases.
Positive discipline has had a transforming effect in education where it is implemented, reducing dropouts, depression, anger, fighting, and criminal acts. We should ruthlessly challenge "spare the rod and spoil the child" with evidence.
@Etimos You're logic is flawed, for your method to teach a child to avoid being injured, is to injure them. Your method imbues no practical lesson beyond "Obey me or suffer." The best solution to the stovetop example, would be to let your child experience a hot object at a young age under your supervision. The object should not be hot enough to cause harm of course, but hot enough to teach them that something emitting heat, will hurt if touched. Such as a hot rock, or sand.
@Synthmilk You just countered my argument with a version of my argument. "your method to teach a child to avoid being injured, is to injure them."
followed immediately by
"let your child experience a hot object at a young age under your supervision."
The difference being that in your example, the experience is a specific scaled down version of the undesirable one, whereas in mine, it's a single application of mild pain applied as a more universal blanket consequence.
I never said beat your child within an inch of their life. Showing the child pain in the form of a mildly hot rock/pan or a somewhat sharp needle or whatever other specific negative reinforcement example you'd like him or her to learn from is an awfully complicated and round-about way of explaining the concept of pain to your child.
You know, kids understand pain quite well if you just explain it to them as 'ouchies'. You dont have to set up a kid-safe pain lab in your kitchen.
@Etimos If you look at it simply from a binary perspective, yes, both paths result in the Pain variable returning True. However, the issue is not that simple, as I already explained. In my example, there is a practical, meaningful relationship between the pain and the undesired behavior. In yours, there is no such relationship. The relationships between action and consequences are fundamental to our understanding of the universe. If the relationships are false, then our understanding is false
@Synthmilk My point was that at the ages of 3 or 4, understanding is secondary to obedience. The child doesnt have to understand HOT, all they need to understand is HURT. They dont need to know the specific kind of pain, only that pain will be invoked. It doesnt matter if that pain is in the form of something hot, or something sharp, or something cold, or something blunt, what matters is that the child avoids it!
As I said, 'Ouchies' is a general concept children understand very well.
The child doesnt have to FEEL it to know that it hurts. As long as the child understands Pain in a general sense, it's enough to say Hurt to express the desired concept. They dont have to have cut themselves to understand that being cut hurts, just as you dont need to have fallen off a bridge to understand that it's very bad for you; not even a very small bridge under parental supervision!
@Etimos I do not know why you think a child that young can not tell the difference between two obviously different sources of stimulus. The child will know the difference between doing something, and being hurt, vs doing something, and their parent hurting them. There is a distinction, it is important, and children that young do make such distinctions. Not all perhaps, but these studies certainly indicate most do.
@Synthmilk I didnt say the child cant tell the difference, I said IT DOESNT MATTER. The fact that the pain is from hot or cold or sharp or hard or whatever is IMMATERIAL, the point is that it's pain. The child doesnt have to understand WHAT KIND OF PAIN, all they have to know is that PAIN IS INVOLVED.
You dont HAVE to teach the child about hot and sharp and hard and all that crap. Pain, by itself, the big Ouchie, is enough for a child that age to know to avoid doing it.
@Synthmilk In this context, the meaning of the act is completely irrelevant. The act itself is the point, namely to prevent it from happening via rapid obedient response to the command No! Explanation and understanding can come later, after the potentially harmful event has already been avoided!
@Etimos "Obedient response to command"? You must be joking. Training a child to stop what they are doing when told to, without any kind of association to a meaningful reason, is ridiculous. Words will NEVER build an association between doing something that will cause pain, and the pain one would feel from doing it, for a child. I can't believe this is not obvious to you, I've seen it so often in young children it's insane to think otherwise. ADULTS have a hard time making such associations.
@Synthmilk Alright, at this point I've more or less lost your point, to say nothing of any desire at all to even care.
A spank is a simple, effective means of causing a small amount of pain in order to illicit an immediate response to punish negative behavior, creating an association between the negative behavior and a negative, undesirable consequence.
This is preferable to the risk of a child ignoring a reprimand, due to an inadequate punishment, and failing to prevent a harmful situation.
That is the summary of my point. I have no idea what you are arguing with, Synthmilk, but you've lost me, and my interest at this point.
I find your example of setting up parent-supervised simulations of dangerous and harmful situations to teach a child the dangers of hot and sharp objects to be overcomplicated and completely unnecessary, especially when a typical child will have plenty of opportunities to discover the wide and wonderful world of pain for themselves in the course of nature.
@Etimos My point, is that a spanking, or other form of physically harmful punishment, does nothing to impress upon the child a reason why their action is worthy of their parent inflicting pain onto them. Without a why, the punishment is just violence triggered by something. It may get the child to stop doing that thing, but it does not teach the child that doing that thing is wrong and that it should not be done at any time.
@Etimos This is no different than most other kinds of teaching. You introduce a basic concept, so that the child can intuit how to act when faced with situation that is more complicated but still based on that concept. Many parents seem to forget that while experience is the best teacher, she's not a one trick pony. Many dangers can be demonstrated in less than harmful forms that will teach the lesson, without the severe consequences.
@Etimos Your hypothesis that a child will "understand when [they're] older," is also false, because if this was the case, then we would not have children who have experienced corporal punishment, who do NOT understand when they get older. Those studies C0n linked show that it is more likely that children who are punished with pain will develop various issues later in life, than if they were not punished that way.
@Synthmilk The same can be said about a great variety of things done with children. Any punishment can cause issues later in life, from time-out in a corner to physical restraint to scolding, depending on how it's done, and other related circumstances. Children NOT spanked can develop completely different issues based on whatever disciplinary system was used instead, whether the issue is a phobia, a character defect, etc.
Hell, even rewarding behaviors can cause issues in adulthood.
@Etimos You're missing the cause-effect significance. There is an apparent general cause-effect relationship between inflicting violence on a young person to that young person developing negative behaviors in the future. Each child is unique, so yes, X parental action may cause [F, J, Z, O, H] problems, but we are seeing that C parental action is consistently resulting in [F, H] problems in a broad spectrum of children from various backgrounds.
x-ians and x-ianity are not well matched....all the old test+jesus saying 'not change a letter of the law'(old test) doesn't give then the fluffy money grabbing anti socialist high ground they want.
So you're just going to point out the problems with the abuse of Sola Scriptura, a 16th century doctrine and extrapolate that this must be a problem within Christianity, a first century religion? Wow, that isn't absurdly ignorant at all, good job C0nc0rdance for educating the masses on subject in which you are so well versed.
Sola scriptura aka Biblical literalism IS a problem in modern Christianity. Haven't you noticed?
Not that prima scriptura of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church is much better. We are still mired in ancient beliefs. Cast them all aside and be moral according to your conscience, unfettered by old rules or arcane traditions.
Sola Scriptura does not equal biblical literalism, the abuse of Sola Scriptura does not equal protestantism, uneducated protestants do not equal Christendom by any stretch of the imagination and lastly Christendom the population does not Christianity the belief system. Words have meanings, stop misusing them. I don't care how old the Law of Agape(Mathew 22:37-40) is it's still the basis of all sound Christian doctrine and it's still relevant.
Do actually believe that all protestants are biblical literalists or do you simply have no idea what you're actually talking about? You also still haven't explained why you equate conservative protestantism to Christianity as a whole. I look forward to having my concerns ignored and reading about how things are old and arcane.
@acidsniper: I look forward to your writing skills improving such that the questions you're trying to ask become actually clear. Also, I look forward to your moving beyond the problematic excluded middle fallacy. Your dichotomy here is false.
Please pray about this and see if your god can't give you a quick education on writing and logic. At the same time, please pray to your milk carton that your god doesn't imbue you with this knowledge. May the better wish-granter win!
You say that "My parent smacked me, and I turned out okay" is irrational nonsense. But rational conclusions are based on evidence, and an "okay" person is entirely subjective, so it is as rational a conclusion as is possible.
Studies involving this are flawed and biased generally, and in the absense of clear evidence, experience has to be the decider.
@passwordresetisbroke There are actually some reliable studies. The ones I have read is mostly in my own language: danish. You can find a repport here that shows that violence against children has serious shortterm effects like: Impulse control, behavioral control and concentration - they are basically scared shitless and angry. Long term effects like: posttraumatic stress syndrome and suicide attempts - can't link the website... but it took me 1 min to find this one - so it can't be too hard
@BjornSeverinLarsen One that you dont link to. One that is in a language I cant read even if you did link to it. Well done.
As an aside, did you read much of it beyond the abstract? How do you determine if it is reliable? If it agrees with you is it reliable and if it doesnt it is unreliable, like most people? How does the author/s deal with the incredible disparity in methods?
I have yet to see one which doesnt back the authors view, or that doesnt abritrarily choose data sets.
@passwordresetisbroke Well yes my comment was directly taken from the abstract. The website is called SFI(dot)dk. You can get the abstract and findings translated on the website, though not the repport. The methods used is: a national questionaire aimed at youths, a data collection in a national regsiter of registered violence against 0 - 16 year old, the reasearch of 900 cases of violence against children through the caseworkers in counties around the country tbc
@passwordresetisbroke 2nd part - a national representative questionaire aimed at 3000 25 year old about their childhoods history of violence and the last one is a qulitative interview study amongst proffesionals working with children about the barriers that exists when you wish to report violence towards children. I actually only recited the mehtods used for collecting data to your benefit - I allrdy trusted their work. It is a trusted national research institute that created the report
@passwordresetisbroke 3rd part - I forgot to say. Just type violence in the search window on the website. Choose the link on the top. However I would like to give some more sources to the veracity of the theories of the harm done by violence towards children. Here they come: R D Perrin (2005): family violence, G Kelly (2000): Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A study of the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect, Christoffersen MOre sources coming TBC
@passwordresetisbroke 4th part - M.N. & D. DePanfilis (2009): “Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect and Improvements in Child Development”, Dutton, D.G. (1995): The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives, Emery, R.E. & L. Laumann-Billings (2002): ”Child Abuse”, Ferguson, H. (2001): “Promoting Child Protection, Welfare and Healing.” Child and Family Social Work, 6(1-23), s. 1-12. Was found in less than 5 min, so for you not to know any studies is rather lazy
@passwordresetisbroke 5th lastly. To say that researchers choose methods and datasets that fits their views, well yes they usually do. However that does not say anything about the veracity of the data collected or how it analyzed. It is only if the researchers ignore some part of the dataset when it doesn't fit with their views, that you can cry wolf. To choose datasets that you think will get you results is only natural.
Secondly, none of the articles you posted had anything to do with this. The debate here is on whether corporeal punishment is effective, all of your articles are about the effects of childhood rape and other forms of abuse, whether that was in an attempt to cloud the issue or a honest mistake I do not know however.
and lastly "To choose datasets that you think will get you results is only natural" and is also unscientific.
@passwordresetisbroke How else would you choose a dataset, than from the knowledge that you posses? So child abuse and neglect is not coporeal punishment? I guess my own bias towards coporeal punishment might be shining through. However the report doesn't deal only with rape and other abuse. It deals with all kind of violence and corporeal punishment is violence. So my first comment still stand of the consequences of violence. Sry I'm very bad at being concise.
@BjornSeverinLarsen Well I only checked the RD Perrin, G Kelly and D Depanfilis texts, and like I said they were all about childhood beatings/rape/sexual abuse/mental abuse, that kind of thing, your other sources may not have but didnt look :D.
What report are you talking about?
And choosing your data sets so that your findings will point to the pre conceived you wish them to is the opposite of scientific study. Of course with a subject like this it is nigh impossible to get decent data.
@passwordresetisbroke On choosing datasets. The report chose a broad dataset which would cover violence against children. It would not just be towards coporeal punishment but also other kind of violence. If you don't choose a dataset which you think can answer your question - whether it be do corporeal punishment work or what are the consequenses of violence against children (the goal of the report). If you chose a dataset that you didn't think would answer your problem, then what? tbc
@passwordresetisbroke 2nd part - This report covered the area of violence against children both by looking in general registers and in specifics. It should have been broad enough to find evidence against the assumption. This report doesn't tell us that corporeal punishment has negative effects but it tells us that violence has. To my best understanding then corporeal punishment is violence. Therefore it is not a leap of faith to say that corporeal punishment probably has negative consequenses.
Part of the genius of science is that it is built to challenge our weaknesses. We are bad at recall, statistics, and TOO good at pattern finding and agency detection. Our anecdotes may suggest what tests to run, but they are the least reliable form of evidence.
Corporal punishment causes a statistically higher risk of certain problems. You are a sample size of 1. There is no way to generalize from your experience what the probability is for all. Do you see that?
@C0nc0rdance You should probably read my post again, or for the first time if you never read it. I never stated that I think everyone should employ corporeal punishment.
All I said was that your statement that corporeal punishment is always irrational isnt true. With no conclusive evidence (and there isnt any) one way or the other you have to use your individual experience as the decider, so those who experienced corporeal punishment and turned out "okay" will rationally see CP as an option.
@C0nc0rdance I fear that in this particular field, the nature of human psychology (and or psychiatry) makes it difficult to draw conclusive links between certain physical punishment methods in childhood and the possible resulting psychological issues of adulthood. The human mind is so complex and the causes behind so many psychoses are so varied that it's inadvisable to draw too many conclusions on the subject. What causes a phobia in one person can cause a philia in another.
@C0nc0rdance i was just wondering this very thing.how can we know without a doubt that the spankings i got as a child resulted in no harm to me?there is no control group of a ME who did NOT get spanked as a child.
@passwordresetisbroke: I once had to arrest a dude with a knife. He stabbed me. I turned out ok, and therefore I now recommend that my experience of turning out "okay" after being skewered in a knife fight indicates that such experience is a net benefit to the person who is stabbed. Studies in this are flawed since so many who have the experience of being stabbed don't live long enough to leave behind a testimonial as to how the experience bettered them. Dead people are so uncooperative.
@passwordresetisbroke: I once had to arrest a dude with a knife. He stabbed me. I turned out ok, and therefore I now recommend that my experience of turning out "okay" after being skewered in a knife fight indicates that such experience is a net benefit to the person who is stabbed. Studies in this are flawed since so many who have the experience of being stabbed don't live long enough to leave behind a testimonial as to how the experience bettered them. Dead people are so uncooperative.
@passwordresetisbroke: I once had to arrest a dude with a knife. He stabbed me. I turned out ok, and therefore I now recommend that my experience of turning out "okay" after being skewered in a knife fight indicates that such experience is a net benefit to the person who is stabbed. Studies in this are flawed since so many who have the experience of being stabbed don't live long enough to leave behind a testimonial as to how the experience bettered them. Dead people are so uncooperative.
Erm, about that map around 8:53 ... I'm pretty sure us teachers are NOT allowed to beat or in any way lay hands on a pupil in school here in France. If we would, we'd lose our jobs on the spot. Teachers here risk lawsuits if a pupil hurts himself under their supervision, even when not intentional.
I'm no lawyer, so I wont go into legislation, but beating your kid would make child services act, if it was known.
But... but... Dr. Wikipedia said so. (the source of the map is the Wikipedia page on "Corporal Punishment")
No, it could certainly be in error. The primary source is the "Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children" (?GIEACPC?). It could be the absence of a national law or the presence of a loophole, or simply an oversight or out-of-date figure.
@C0nc0rdance I checked some sites, and it turns out France lacks a clear law against corporal punishment. However, "Abuse" (maltraitance) is stronlgy fought against in the media and also by law, with many abusive parents being sentenced every year apparently.
Also, it seems to be forbidden in schools. I found an unclear article about that, so the law could date 2008.
But, law or no law, "no beating" remains de-facto policy by our almighty ministry of education...
i hate when they mention the old testament vs the new testament. dont they understand that the book is rewritten to best suit the control needed for the time?
Your point at the end about spanking and beating is thepoint I was trying to get across in my comments to the Pearls before Swine Promo video. From the number of thumbs up I got, a lot of people agreed, which is gratifying, but certain people refused to understand. I wish I had your way with words.
Im amazed that ppl dont seem to realize that by allowing the statement that "For Good ppl to do evil it takes religion" you have just validated the notion that religion can 'save' a person who has done evil. Religion does not cause one to be good or evil, with the richness of information out there, ppl choose to be good or evil by themselves. I do not believe religion caused Gandhi/MLK's behavior so equally I do not believe religion caused evil.
@Sunhawk7ajj - What you say is mostly true, especially in the large scale things. However, I know someone who is generally a very good person. They are kind, caring and compassionate, in the general terms. Yet they believe gay people should not be married. That is an evil, causing great injury and trouble to real people in their support of that. They believe they are doing good, they generally do good in nearly every other way. I think this people like that are who the quote refers to.
@Jaelra Hmm.. I am of the opinion that you can believe what ever you want for yourself as long as you dont impose it on others. You dont believe in gay marriages - fine don't marry gays, just dont try to stop the rights of other based on personal belief. I would say this individual has a personal prejudice and is not will to go beyond their comfort zone, they choose to allow bias and discrimination. Thus they as individuals are held responsible for their actions.
@Sunhawk7ajj-you have just validated the notion that religion can 'save' a person who has done evil.
I think what it validates, if anything, is the notion that religion can prevent evil people from doing evil. I'm willing to grant that yes there are sociopaths who don't rape, and murder because they fear God's eternal punishment. In fact I think that Christianities message that we are all inherently evil might resonate with them.
In fact when I hear a theist say "if it weren't for God there would be nothing to stop me from raping, and murdering", I don't assume it's just hyperbole, and suggest to them that, if that's true, they do us all a favor, and keep right on believing. :p
@TheNakedAtheist Well if you accept that validation... there is no issue. I just don't except the argument either way. And I do believe that though they say they would do bad, a theist without 'religion' in reality would find another excuse NOT to do bad things. I go with the individual as accountable for their actions, as at the end of the day the only thing a sane human being can control is themselves.
@Sunhawk7ajj-I do believe that though they say they would do bad, a theist without 'religion' in reality would find another excuse NOT to do bad things.
I wish I could be so optimistic, but looking into their eyes, and the sincerity with which they seem to say it, and given that up to 4% of people suffer from antisocial personality disorder. I see no good reason not to take their word for it when they say it.
I suppose I better clarify before someone comes along, and doesn't follow the thread properly. I'm referring to those theists who specifically say they would start killing, and raping if they didn't believe God existed.
@Sunhawk7ajj-I just don't except the argument either way.
Having thought over what you said I have to say I have a really difficult time believing that you don't think the threat of eternal punishment would deter crime? I mean I'd be pretty damn tempted to rob a bank if prison wasn't a possibility.
@TheNakedAtheist AND that validates the idea that religion is needed for moral development. People as social beings are hardwired for group advancement. My argument is that in a society where there is enough info for one to KNOW that an act is wrong/illegal/etc the allowance for religion/race/upbringing etc to be used as an excuse for behavior negates responsibility. As ppl with discrimination, when you fail to apply it to a situation and act where consequences are clear, YOU are responsible.
Sorry C0nc0rdance, but thumbs down. Your example at the end was so poor that it could not redeem the rest. Almost all criminals seek to minimize their crimes. Rapists try argue their act was consentual. Does that negate consentual sex? Those who commit assault often try to claim it was self-defense. Does this invalidate defending oneself? I want non-atheists to know that his views ARE HIS OWN & do not represent ANY trend in atheism. Atheists SHOULD NOT attach THEIR pet peeves to the rest of us.
I'm not comfortable with the supposed truism of "...that takes religion".
It's perfectly possible for 'good' people to do plenty of 'evil' when following *any* reality-challenged philosophy or ideology, it's not simply limited to religion. You can't just post-hoc categorize any ideology that makes 'good' people do 'evil' things as an "religious" ideology.
I'm an iron-hard gnostic atheist, but that phrase always bothers me.
Perhaps Jesus never beat children when he was on earth, but as soon as he got back to heaven, he started killing them for the sins of their parents;
Rev 2:22-23 'Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 'And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
also i think in this case the two parents should be charged with manslaughter or something like that, and go to prison for a really, really long time.
i think there should be a mandatory prison sentence of 2 years, during which parents are NOT allowed any contact to their children, for any kind of spanking / hitting / beating. Would be better for the children and the parents, the children might learn that there are people in the world that are NOT violent bastards, and the parents learn that if they keep spanking their children and go to prison for 2 years each time someone finds out, they just wont be the ones raising their children.
A majority of Christian sects are not in favor of corporal punishment. This is what happens when a backwater community is allowed to run a Church that would preach a misinterpretation of the Bible. The message is to love. The scriptures that say to beat your children are old world traditions. Do I have to keep repeating myself about Mark 7:6-15? e.e
@TheStigmadeign-A majority of Christian sects are not in favor of corporal punishment.
Even if that's true, the states that allow corporal punishment in US schools are exclusively in the bile belt, and whenever the argument is made that corporal punishment should be outlawed as it is in most civilized western nations, "spare the rob spoil the child" is trotted out as justification, and it's framed by Christians as a religious freedom issue.
If you had simply Googled US states that allow corporal punishment in schools before commenting, you could have avoided making yourself look like an idiot.
Christianity drives support for corporal punishment in the same way it drives opposition to gay marriage. In fact the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" is such a powerful meme, that it infects those who consider themselves non-religious almost as strongly as it does the religious. To the point that it (contrary to scientific evidence) is accepted as fact.
Also according to a joint report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union the worst offenders in terms of corporal punishment (more than 10,000 incidents) are "coincidentally" the most religious states.
@TheNakedAtheist Around 60% are against it. The rest do not have a tag attached saying Property of God. e.e Some may but to categorize us all as being "that way" is a bigoted insult against our culture.
It is not bigoted to point out the fact that Christianity bolsters corporal punishment, as it does opposition to gay marriage. We can't allow the truth to be ignored, or pretend it doesn't exist because some people may use it to support their bigotry. The opposition to gay marriage in national polls I've seen recently is at just around 50% obviously not all Christians oppose it or it would be at 80%+.
@TheNakedAtheist When you categorize the individual Christian among the rest, that is being stereotypical. A stereotypical view point is an emotional derivation of bigotry. You find something wrong with the religion. The problem is that there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity. Lately, more have become less denominational, and less indoctrinated to older world customs. Christianity has moved into a new age of understanding the message of God as a whole.
@TheStigmadeign Calling someone a bigot doesn't invalidate their points, and pretending that Christianity has never held a pro-corporal punishment or anti-gay viewpoint is downright lying. However, you've gone further and combined the two in a beautiful little string of circular logic; that Msr. TheNakedAtheist is a bigot because he generalizes Christians, and is thus wrong, which thus negates his point, which means that Christians don't hold pro-corporal punishment viewpoints, etcetc.
@PhobicOne It certainly compromises their argument. To show any sort of disregard out of disgust for any culture due to the lack of understanding it fully as those raised within that social environment, can easily be justified as a bigoted act. This makes their argument more illusive and just an emotionally driven opinion.
@TheStigmadeign No, their arguments stand on their own merits. Newton, who was undoubtedly one of the brightest minds in the world, went loopy towards the end and pursued a bunch of stupid things, including alchemy. His obsession with alchemy does not weaken the foundations for mathematics and physics which he laid. The fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was a notorious boozehound and womanizer does not make his movement any less courageous and revolutionary.
@TheStigmadeign-when you categorize all Christians under the same profile.
And clearly that's not what I'm doing, but you go right ahead, and play your little "accuse someone of bigotry in an attempt to discredit their valid argument" game. I find it amusing. :-)
@TheNakedAtheist See you find amusement in straw manning people in hopes that you will deceive them. There is everything dishonest and inhumane with this. You really don't know much about God. I suggest you get therapy to control this attitude you have towards people that have a different belief. You being butt hurt over something in the Bible that you disagree with, doesn't make it false!
@EmpyrealStorm Well, if one is asked the question "is it moral for a woman to be forced to marry the man who raped her, yes or no?" This is not very complicated. However, it is a problem for the Theist. If he answers yes he will be admitting that he condones this action. If he answers no he will be inplying that the Bible is not 100% moral, there are some immoral bits. So the Theist must employ apologetics to get around this apparent empasse, and try to put it some sort of context.
The contents of this video strikes a chord with me.
When the story of Beardy McChildbeater and his stupid wife came out I saw a lot of comments about how a good spanking was good for children. In particular there was one father who admitted doing it to his two daughters.
I said if I knew where he was I'd send child services to get his kids. He got absolutely enraged. "I can control my anger just fine!", but he flies into a rage easily and spanks his kids? I pity them. I hope they're okay.
@globalfraud That is a good question. Do they count the likes in the comments? cause I have liked comments without viewing the vid, from the comments page.
this is pretty much what I've been saying, the bible makes it clear that beating a child is completely okay and sometimes needs to be done to death. Amazing how these fundies gloss over this.
"It is a loaded weapon of justification..." I like that.
johnrcoben 3 months ago
Good vid but you seem to have assumed at the end that all hitting is a result of a lack of self control, or the result of anger or emotionality/tiredness.
antonc81 5 months ago
This is maybe one of your most important videos in a long time. Thank you
aLmAnZio 5 months ago
I can't believe I'm just now seeing this video, but I have something I want to say. I was looking at Jack's response and his comments. He is trying to get you to prove who has the correct interpretation when that isn't even the issue. The video was showing the cognitive dissonance that exists with bible interpretations and all of the justified behavior it encompasses. You proving what the correct interpretation is is irrelevant. Great video. Did you ever see the blogtv discussion I put up?
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
The biggest problem with me agreeing with the non-violence parental enforcement line( spanking = beating) is that I have to somehow admit that the one time I was spanked somehow damaged me psychologically.
I don't think it did. But I feel an unfairness about calling me out on confirmation bias and then assuming the opposite -- that I am somehow screwed up. That's rude. How am I to agree with that statement? My ego won't allow it.
Kreadus005 5 months ago
@Kreadus005
You are interestingly self-aware!
Spanking is a component cause, not a sufficient cause. A probabilistic effect, not a deterministic one. You were probably not exposed to the same environment in other ways as the kids who developed problems.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
c0nc0rdance let me ask you something: Do you wear glasses?Stupid question I know.. but for some reason I can't stop thinking about it!! :P
Stevoukos 5 months ago
One thing I don't understand is how Christians rectify 'absolute truth' between the time that God supposedly changed his mind and when those changes were put into scripture, ie many christians say 'well, not in the new testament' Could God be in the process of changing his mind again (on any number of things), as we speak, but he just hasn't written it down yet? If so, could christians following their adopted new testament guidelines be acting immoral from their own absolutist viewpoint?
arr4gtr 5 months ago
@arr4gtr not to mention that it's all BS anyway...
arr4gtr 5 months ago
It's funny how Christians want to excuse Jesus from OLD LAWS, yet how come he never stated clearly, GUYS GUYS GUYS!All this nonsense in the OLD TESTAMENT on how to treat your slaves, women, children, others, YOU NEED TO FORGET ABOUT IT! From now on, this is what you are going to do. Unfortunately NONE of this can be found in the NT, but shit you will find will be more like "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
gskowal 5 months ago
Thanks for making this video. I appreciate the clarity, and I think the apology showed a great deal of class.
Friendough 5 months ago
.... ok, so you don't let there be a distinction between beating and spanking. Even though the word "beat" has a much different and more severe connotation than spank...
Remember you didn't do the same for the word "mutilate" in circumcision.
The "other people" mutilate their child's genitals, you just gave a small cut.
You always say that correlation does not imply causation, but here you seem to be doing it for spanking and behavior issues/agression etc.
ryoshi100 5 months ago
@ryoshi100
You'll notice that I generally use the term "corporal punishment", which is a neutral, objective term. It includes in it the activities of beating, hitting and spanking, which are all subjective terms used for emotional shading. There's no way to objectively differentiate between hitting and beating.
Calling circumcision "genital mutilation" is an emotional shading term like "beating". You can use it if you want, but it's mostly good for shock value.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago 6
@C0nc0rdance
You clearly do see that "beating" is an emotionally charged word, yet still think it's objective to use it in regards to "spanking"?
Although not always, it implies some object is being used. It implies a greater amount of force/violence.
I just fail to see how such subjectivity, can be intellectually honest.
Why not use "strike"? It is still emotional, but doesn't imply the same level of violence. You seem to be equating the person talking to police to every spanking
ryoshi100 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance
You clearly do see that "beating" is an emotionally charged word, yet still think it's objective to use it in regards to "spanking"?
Although not always, it implies some object is being used. It implies a greater amount of force/violence.
I just fail to see how such subjectivity, can be intellectually honest.
Why not use "strike"? It is still emotional, but doesn't imply the same level of violence. You seem to be equating the person talking to police to every spanking
ryoshi100 5 months ago
@ryoshi100 - You did notice that he had said he read studies on the issue. Do you not think it likely that he had gain this opinion from reading these studies? I suspect that is indeed why he holds the opinion he does.
PurpleGhost 5 months ago
@PurpleGhost
He read studies, yet he chose to use the words "link" and "associated with". It isn't what he says, it what people here. Using correlations as part of your argument without any kind of qualitative data to support it is kind of misleading.
Lets also remember that anti-vaccine people often use correlations without any numbers. "This ingredient is associated with etc etc"
ryoshi100 5 months ago
@ryoshi100 growl, auto correct.. It should read "what people hear" not "here"
ryoshi100 5 months ago
@ryoshi100
You are just picking apart the words he uses. Why is that? Do you honestly have an issue with the way he's said things - Do you honestly think it matters if someone uses emotionally charged words in a video that is expressing their personal opinions?
Conc0rdance is a scientist, but he does not have to speak with complete objectivity constantly, and there is no reason he should have to in this instance, he's expressing an opinion, not a scientific review of evidence.
PurpleGhost 5 months ago
@PurpleGhost Rhetoric matters to me. And although I have not completed my education, I consider myself a scientist too. (Biotechnology, the University of Nebraska @ Omaha)
Why do you seem soo invested in what I should or shouldn't be bothered by? Why should I blindly accept an opinion when it is "an opinion". I cannot in good faith pretend to not see what's there. Take your heart off your sleeve, you don't owe me such transparency. I'm just an internet person :3
ryoshi100 5 months ago
@ryoshi100 I am invested, in being curious, it is a part of myself that I can not 'turn off'. Internet people, are still people. ;)
Neither he, nor I, have suggested that you blindly accept this opinion. But your not actually questioning the opinion, you are questioning the method through which he expressed it, the words he chose. (because rhetoric matters to you) - I'd like to point out, there is a difference. Accepting someone using whatever words, is not accepting the opinion they represent.
PurpleGhost 5 months ago
@ryoshi100 - Incidentally, even if it is misleading, what is the worst possible way this information could be taken? That people are inclined to believe, that if they spank their children, that they will be doing them harm?
Well that is a possibility, it begs the question, what does not spanking your children do? Well, given there are other ways to discipline (even physical ways that are non-violent, such as picking them up and putting them in their room) so what is lost? I think nothing.
PurpleGhost 5 months ago
We all know negative reinforcement isn't good. People who insist its good need only to use his common sense and stop reading this 2k old plagiarized fairy tale book. Better yet try it on your dog. Kick your dog each time it does something wrong.
bebeLUVnardo 5 months ago
I'm curious to know which specific criticisms this video actually addresses? I don't recall the criticisms being that the clip was 'dishonest.' The fact is, as Dprjones admitted himself, on the Fridaynightroundtable he saw little reason to "bend over backwards to give a balanced approach."
TogetherForPeace 5 months ago
There is no power in the universe that can make me harm a child. I guess that's why I'm not a Christian, nor Muslim.
Desertphile 5 months ago
I had two internal responses to this video.
1. "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." - Ooooh I'm using that.
2. "I'm not an anti-theist". - I am. But it's a bit like a abortion for me. I genuinely think it's wrong; but, I've made my choice, and I don't see a basis for me to deny that choice to other people. Instead I share my opinion and hope I can be persuasive.
t3tsuyaguy1 5 months ago
That was on the OT so it does not matter...really? So that means god changes his mind? Is it not the same god in the OT as NT?
My goodness some people are spastic.....
myjizzureye 5 months ago
My issue with the attached video is simple. It is "sensational" in the worst of the word -- in the sense of sensationalism -- in the sense of editing together two fundamentally unrelated videos *not* to enlighten or educate but to produce a purely emotional effect.
Everything that you say about corporal punishment might be true. It might very well *not* be the optimal way to raise one's children. It may be that there's never a reason to strike a child.
prodprod 5 months ago
(cont'd) (2) But given that corporal punishment was not only considered normal parenting but was normal even in the context of schooling -- teachers would also use corporal punishment on misbehaving children -- it is difficult to accept the assessment that every incident of an adult, including a parent, using corporal punishment on a child rises to the level of child abuse (which is a crime) -- and there are, in fact, those who have and do make exactly that claim.
prodprod 5 months ago
(cont'd) (3) And when you have a video that intercuts between parents who talk about corporal punishment and make the point that they have never struck their children hard enough to even leave a bruise -- and then cut to the bodies of children who have literally been beaten to death, the message that is being sent, namely that the former behavior and the latter is essentially comparable -- is both clear -- and false.
And that is true even if you consider those parents to be dead wrong.
prodprod 5 months ago
@prodprod I think the "message" that you got from the video is nothing more then a figment of your imagination. Either that or you just find strawmen a little easier to deal with then the actual argument put forth.
fortyone0 5 months ago
@fortyone0 For that to be so -- for it to merely be a figment of my imagination, implies that the editing of the video in question to to what -- coincidental? Arbitrary? Not intended to serve any particular purpose?
Whatever the argument may be against corporal punishment, per se -- intercutting between parents who practice corporal punishment and parents who've beaten their children to death *doesn't constitute an argument," It's simply an appeal to emotion.
That's an argumentative fallacy.
prodprod 5 months ago
@prodprod Wow. You do know what a "promo" is right? The video didn't make an argument. It introduced a topic. The editing showed the reason the topic was being discussed as well as some of the views of Christians here on Youtube on the subject. This is not a difficult concept. Any other meaning you got out of it is your own not theirs.
fortyone0 5 months ago
@fortyone0 With all due respect, the video in question was not content neutral. It certainly had a point of view -- which is fine. It's fine for the Christians portrayed to have their point of view regarding corporal punishment, whether justified or not and it's fine for the video, call it a promo or anything else, to comment on it. But certain forms of commentary have weight in the context of a reasoned debate and others don't.
And an appeal to emotion doesn't.
prodprod 5 months ago
(cont'd) (2) Suggesting that my reaction was somehow merely subjective and had no relation to the editorial choices of the maker of the original piece are, I'm afraid, ingenuous in the extreme, as it ought to be clear to anybody watching that video, that the reactions produced are precisely those intended by it's maker.
You might as well cut between a shot of a Catholic church and a swastika and say -- Oh, if you think the video is aiming at creating an emotional reaction -- that's just you.
prodprod 5 months ago
Somebody who condemn others for beating their children and then, in the same breath, say that he beats his own but with care and love is a 1st grade hypocrite. Beat you kid is ONLY taking out your own personal frustration on the kid and will teach the kid that this is OK to do.
As a parent you are the grown up, the wise that have learned self control and if you want your children to learn that you better show it.
Nobody said parenting should be easy.
FredricF 5 months ago
Hey, if someone accuses you of quote mining and taking stuff out of context, they're always free to make a video response that provides the proper context, right?
Don't hold your breath waiting for that "proper context" to be presented though. It's not coming, because you're completely right.
FrostdPoptart 5 months ago
whoa wait,was that actually C0ncordance?
WonderfulDenmark 5 months ago
@WonderfulDenmark No.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
Well, I wont say you're wrong, Concordance, but I will disagree with you on the spanking issue. I dont deny it is a form of violence, that you could call it beating, but at the same time, I wont discount its effectiveness either, when used with restraint. The issue for me is that I've seen its effectiveness when compared with non-violent alternatives.
Children between 2 and 6 generally have fairly poor reasoning skills, so many non-violent alternatives like time-out simply dont get through.
Etimos 5 months ago
A willful child at a certain age cannot be reasoned with, simply because their reasoning skills are not yet developed to that point.
As much as it might seem unpopular to say it, sometimes obedience to authority is necessary, even if you dont understand the reason (as when a child is three years old and doesnt understand that the stove will hurt them). As an adult it's different, but when a child is about to do something dangerous, a non-violent talking to may not discourage them in time.
Etimos 5 months ago
If done properly, the spanking isnt even necessary, so much as just the threat of one. Thus, when you say to your child "Dont touch that", and they ignore your warning, a raised hand, with the implication if immediate and painful consequences, will achieve the desired response swiftly and without injury, whereas a child accustomed to non-violent warnings may consider the punishment less undesirable, and may simply ignore it.
This is Punishment, after all. It's supposed to be unpleasant.
Etimos 5 months ago
Now I realize anecdotes are not proper evidence, but ignoring that for now, I compare my own upbringing to that of my nephew, as an example.
My mother had a 1 2 3 spank warning system, as a general rule (forgoing the 1 2 3 in severe cases). More often than not, by 2, she'd get the desired response from me.
My stepfather, who is chiefly raising my nephew, is more or less non-spanking. He tends toward non-violent solutions, and as a result, my nephew often blatantly ignores multiple warnings.
Etimos 5 months ago
The reason being, he's five years old, and without the reasoning capacity of an adult, he sees no immediate negative consequence to his actions, and therefor feels free to continue doing as he pleases after repeated warnings.
Now when he's older, and more capable of reasoning, this may change, but for right now, this is a dangerous situation, because if he is warned not to do something that may hurt him, there is a good chance that he will ignore that warning, for lack of a visible consequence.
Etimos 5 months ago
At his age, my reasoning skills were little better, but I did at least understand that, regardless of the consequences of whatever action I was about to undertake, whether it be running across the street or touching a frying pan, when my mother said One, Two, I was about to get a slap, and that was all that mattered at the time.
I understand fully NOW why she did it, but at the time, it wasnt important for me to understand why, the important thing was that I OBEYED, for fear of consequences.
Etimos 5 months ago
Now yes, this is certainly a power which can be abused, but so is anything, if done irresponsibly. You can abuse a pointer laser and blind someone, but does that mean we should ban pointer lasers?
Spanking is an effective deterrent against undesirable behavior in children at young ages, when reasoning is difficult or impossible due to the child's own mental non-development. You may not be able to explain the danger of a live electrical wire, but a child will understand 'smack'.
Etimos 5 months ago
Thus, I personally support spanking, within reason, as an effective means of deterrence.
Pain is one of the most deep and primordial sensations in the animal brain, deeply connected to memory, and is immediately recognizable and undesirable to all forms of life capable of experiencing it. Even in a young child, incapable of deep thought or deductive reasoning, the threat of a smack is effective. He doesnt have to understand why now. He'll understand when he's older, like you and I do now.
Etimos 5 months ago
@Etimos
Consider the trust in the parent-child relationship. Could striking a child harm that trust? Does it demonstrate the power of violence? What kind of a person are you raising with CP? One who takes risks?
I'd recommend you look into positive discipline (PD), which is the current model favored by a lot of child psychologists. It requires more effort on the part of the parent, but has very strong evidence of success in childhood and beyond.
J Fam Psychol. 2007 Dec;21(4):626-36.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
I want you to understand that it's not just a personal conviction against CP. It's the fact that it doesn't work well when measured empirically. It has undesired consequences in a percentage of cases.
Positive discipline has had a transforming effect in education where it is implemented, reducing dropouts, depression, anger, fighting, and criminal acts. We should ruthlessly challenge "spare the rod and spoil the child" with evidence.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
@Etimos You're logic is flawed, for your method to teach a child to avoid being injured, is to injure them. Your method imbues no practical lesson beyond "Obey me or suffer." The best solution to the stovetop example, would be to let your child experience a hot object at a young age under your supervision. The object should not be hot enough to cause harm of course, but hot enough to teach them that something emitting heat, will hurt if touched. Such as a hot rock, or sand.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Synthmilk You just countered my argument with a version of my argument. "your method to teach a child to avoid being injured, is to injure them."
followed immediately by
"let your child experience a hot object at a young age under your supervision."
The difference being that in your example, the experience is a specific scaled down version of the undesirable one, whereas in mine, it's a single application of mild pain applied as a more universal blanket consequence.
Etimos 5 months ago
I never said beat your child within an inch of their life. Showing the child pain in the form of a mildly hot rock/pan or a somewhat sharp needle or whatever other specific negative reinforcement example you'd like him or her to learn from is an awfully complicated and round-about way of explaining the concept of pain to your child.
You know, kids understand pain quite well if you just explain it to them as 'ouchies'. You dont have to set up a kid-safe pain lab in your kitchen.
Etimos 5 months ago
@Etimos If you look at it simply from a binary perspective, yes, both paths result in the Pain variable returning True. However, the issue is not that simple, as I already explained. In my example, there is a practical, meaningful relationship between the pain and the undesired behavior. In yours, there is no such relationship. The relationships between action and consequences are fundamental to our understanding of the universe. If the relationships are false, then our understanding is false
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Synthmilk My point was that at the ages of 3 or 4, understanding is secondary to obedience. The child doesnt have to understand HOT, all they need to understand is HURT. They dont need to know the specific kind of pain, only that pain will be invoked. It doesnt matter if that pain is in the form of something hot, or something sharp, or something cold, or something blunt, what matters is that the child avoids it!
As I said, 'Ouchies' is a general concept children understand very well.
Etimos 5 months ago
The child doesnt have to FEEL it to know that it hurts. As long as the child understands Pain in a general sense, it's enough to say Hurt to express the desired concept. They dont have to have cut themselves to understand that being cut hurts, just as you dont need to have fallen off a bridge to understand that it's very bad for you; not even a very small bridge under parental supervision!
Etimos 5 months ago
@Etimos I do not know why you think a child that young can not tell the difference between two obviously different sources of stimulus. The child will know the difference between doing something, and being hurt, vs doing something, and their parent hurting them. There is a distinction, it is important, and children that young do make such distinctions. Not all perhaps, but these studies certainly indicate most do.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Synthmilk I didnt say the child cant tell the difference, I said IT DOESNT MATTER. The fact that the pain is from hot or cold or sharp or hard or whatever is IMMATERIAL, the point is that it's pain. The child doesnt have to understand WHAT KIND OF PAIN, all they have to know is that PAIN IS INVOLVED.
You dont HAVE to teach the child about hot and sharp and hard and all that crap. Pain, by itself, the big Ouchie, is enough for a child that age to know to avoid doing it.
Etimos 5 months ago
@Etimos ...Since when does the meaning of an act not matter?
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Synthmilk In this context, the meaning of the act is completely irrelevant. The act itself is the point, namely to prevent it from happening via rapid obedient response to the command No! Explanation and understanding can come later, after the potentially harmful event has already been avoided!
Etimos 5 months ago
@Etimos "Obedient response to command"? You must be joking. Training a child to stop what they are doing when told to, without any kind of association to a meaningful reason, is ridiculous. Words will NEVER build an association between doing something that will cause pain, and the pain one would feel from doing it, for a child. I can't believe this is not obvious to you, I've seen it so often in young children it's insane to think otherwise. ADULTS have a hard time making such associations.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Synthmilk Alright, at this point I've more or less lost your point, to say nothing of any desire at all to even care.
A spank is a simple, effective means of causing a small amount of pain in order to illicit an immediate response to punish negative behavior, creating an association between the negative behavior and a negative, undesirable consequence.
This is preferable to the risk of a child ignoring a reprimand, due to an inadequate punishment, and failing to prevent a harmful situation.
Etimos 5 months ago
That is the summary of my point. I have no idea what you are arguing with, Synthmilk, but you've lost me, and my interest at this point.
I find your example of setting up parent-supervised simulations of dangerous and harmful situations to teach a child the dangers of hot and sharp objects to be overcomplicated and completely unnecessary, especially when a typical child will have plenty of opportunities to discover the wide and wonderful world of pain for themselves in the course of nature.
Etimos 5 months ago
@Etimos My point, is that a spanking, or other form of physically harmful punishment, does nothing to impress upon the child a reason why their action is worthy of their parent inflicting pain onto them. Without a why, the punishment is just violence triggered by something. It may get the child to stop doing that thing, but it does not teach the child that doing that thing is wrong and that it should not be done at any time.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Etimos This is no different than most other kinds of teaching. You introduce a basic concept, so that the child can intuit how to act when faced with situation that is more complicated but still based on that concept. Many parents seem to forget that while experience is the best teacher, she's not a one trick pony. Many dangers can be demonstrated in less than harmful forms that will teach the lesson, without the severe consequences.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Etimos Your hypothesis that a child will "understand when [they're] older," is also false, because if this was the case, then we would not have children who have experienced corporal punishment, who do NOT understand when they get older. Those studies C0n linked show that it is more likely that children who are punished with pain will develop various issues later in life, than if they were not punished that way.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Synthmilk The same can be said about a great variety of things done with children. Any punishment can cause issues later in life, from time-out in a corner to physical restraint to scolding, depending on how it's done, and other related circumstances. Children NOT spanked can develop completely different issues based on whatever disciplinary system was used instead, whether the issue is a phobia, a character defect, etc.
Hell, even rewarding behaviors can cause issues in adulthood.
Etimos 5 months ago
@Etimos You're missing the cause-effect significance. There is an apparent general cause-effect relationship between inflicting violence on a young person to that young person developing negative behaviors in the future. Each child is unique, so yes, X parental action may cause [F, J, Z, O, H] problems, but we are seeing that C parental action is consistently resulting in [F, H] problems in a broad spectrum of children from various backgrounds.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
@Etimos I will however point out, that forcibly removing a child from a harmful situation if necessary to prevent more serious harm, is acceptable.
Synthmilk 5 months ago
x-ians and x-ianity are not well matched....all the old test+jesus saying 'not change a letter of the law'(old test) doesn't give then the fluffy money grabbing anti socialist high ground they want.
penvsword 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
So you're just going to point out the problems with the abuse of Sola Scriptura, a 16th century doctrine and extrapolate that this must be a problem within Christianity, a first century religion? Wow, that isn't absurdly ignorant at all, good job C0nc0rdance for educating the masses on subject in which you are so well versed.
repinsdica 5 months ago
@repinsdica
Sola scriptura aka Biblical literalism IS a problem in modern Christianity. Haven't you noticed?
Not that prima scriptura of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church is much better. We are still mired in ancient beliefs. Cast them all aside and be moral according to your conscience, unfettered by old rules or arcane traditions.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago 22
@C0nc0rdance
Sola Scriptura does not equal biblical literalism, the abuse of Sola Scriptura does not equal protestantism, uneducated protestants do not equal Christendom by any stretch of the imagination and lastly Christendom the population does not Christianity the belief system. Words have meanings, stop misusing them. I don't care how old the Law of Agape(Mathew 22:37-40) is it's still the basis of all sound Christian doctrine and it's still relevant.
repinsdica 5 months ago 2
@C0nc0rdance
Do actually believe that all protestants are biblical literalists or do you simply have no idea what you're actually talking about? You also still haven't explained why you equate conservative protestantism to Christianity as a whole. I look forward to having my concerns ignored and reading about how things are old and arcane.
acidsniper 5 months ago
@acidsniper: I look forward to your writing skills improving such that the questions you're trying to ask become actually clear. Also, I look forward to your moving beyond the problematic excluded middle fallacy. Your dichotomy here is false.
Please pray about this and see if your god can't give you a quick education on writing and logic. At the same time, please pray to your milk carton that your god doesn't imbue you with this knowledge. May the better wish-granter win!
integralmath 5 months ago
To start with I'd just like to say I DISAGREE!
Other than that we're in agreement on all counts.
mitenzouki 5 months ago
You say that "My parent smacked me, and I turned out okay" is irrational nonsense. But rational conclusions are based on evidence, and an "okay" person is entirely subjective, so it is as rational a conclusion as is possible.
Studies involving this are flawed and biased generally, and in the absense of clear evidence, experience has to be the decider.
passwordresetisbroke 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke There are actually some reliable studies. The ones I have read is mostly in my own language: danish. You can find a repport here that shows that violence against children has serious shortterm effects like: Impulse control, behavioral control and concentration - they are basically scared shitless and angry. Long term effects like: posttraumatic stress syndrome and suicide attempts - can't link the website... but it took me 1 min to find this one - so it can't be too hard
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen One that you dont link to. One that is in a language I cant read even if you did link to it. Well done.
As an aside, did you read much of it beyond the abstract? How do you determine if it is reliable? If it agrees with you is it reliable and if it doesnt it is unreliable, like most people? How does the author/s deal with the incredible disparity in methods?
I have yet to see one which doesnt back the authors view, or that doesnt abritrarily choose data sets.
passwordresetisbroke 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke Well yes my comment was directly taken from the abstract. The website is called SFI(dot)dk. You can get the abstract and findings translated on the website, though not the repport. The methods used is: a national questionaire aimed at youths, a data collection in a national regsiter of registered violence against 0 - 16 year old, the reasearch of 900 cases of violence against children through the caseworkers in counties around the country tbc
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
Comment removed
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@passwordresetisbroke 2nd part - a national representative questionaire aimed at 3000 25 year old about their childhoods history of violence and the last one is a qulitative interview study amongst proffesionals working with children about the barriers that exists when you wish to report violence towards children. I actually only recited the mehtods used for collecting data to your benefit - I allrdy trusted their work. It is a trusted national research institute that created the report
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke 3rd part - I forgot to say. Just type violence in the search window on the website. Choose the link on the top. However I would like to give some more sources to the veracity of the theories of the harm done by violence towards children. Here they come: R D Perrin (2005): family violence, G Kelly (2000): Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A study of the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect, Christoffersen MOre sources coming TBC
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke 4th part - M.N. & D. DePanfilis (2009): “Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect and Improvements in Child Development”, Dutton, D.G. (1995): The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives, Emery, R.E. & L. Laumann-Billings (2002): ”Child Abuse”, Ferguson, H. (2001): “Promoting Child Protection, Welfare and Healing.” Child and Family Social Work, 6(1-23), s. 1-12. Was found in less than 5 min, so for you not to know any studies is rather lazy
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke 5th lastly. To say that researchers choose methods and datasets that fits their views, well yes they usually do. However that does not say anything about the veracity of the data collected or how it analyzed. It is only if the researchers ignore some part of the dataset when it doesn't fit with their views, that you can cry wolf. To choose datasets that you think will get you results is only natural.
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen First off, keep your posts concise.
Secondly, none of the articles you posted had anything to do with this. The debate here is on whether corporeal punishment is effective, all of your articles are about the effects of childhood rape and other forms of abuse, whether that was in an attempt to cloud the issue or a honest mistake I do not know however.
and lastly "To choose datasets that you think will get you results is only natural" and is also unscientific.
passwordresetisbroke 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke How else would you choose a dataset, than from the knowledge that you posses? So child abuse and neglect is not coporeal punishment? I guess my own bias towards coporeal punishment might be shining through. However the report doesn't deal only with rape and other abuse. It deals with all kind of violence and corporeal punishment is violence. So my first comment still stand of the consequences of violence. Sry I'm very bad at being concise.
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen Well I only checked the RD Perrin, G Kelly and D Depanfilis texts, and like I said they were all about childhood beatings/rape/sexual abuse/mental abuse, that kind of thing, your other sources may not have but didnt look :D.
What report are you talking about?
And choosing your data sets so that your findings will point to the pre conceived you wish them to is the opposite of scientific study. Of course with a subject like this it is nigh impossible to get decent data.
passwordresetisbroke 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke On choosing datasets. The report chose a broad dataset which would cover violence against children. It would not just be towards coporeal punishment but also other kind of violence. If you don't choose a dataset which you think can answer your question - whether it be do corporeal punishment work or what are the consequenses of violence against children (the goal of the report). If you chose a dataset that you didn't think would answer your problem, then what? tbc
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke 2nd part - This report covered the area of violence against children both by looking in general registers and in specifics. It should have been broad enough to find evidence against the assumption. This report doesn't tell us that corporeal punishment has negative effects but it tells us that violence has. To my best understanding then corporeal punishment is violence. Therefore it is not a leap of faith to say that corporeal punishment probably has negative consequenses.
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke 3rd - Oh the report im talking about is the one i mentioned in my first comment.
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke
Part of the genius of science is that it is built to challenge our weaknesses. We are bad at recall, statistics, and TOO good at pattern finding and agency detection. Our anecdotes may suggest what tests to run, but they are the least reliable form of evidence.
Corporal punishment causes a statistically higher risk of certain problems. You are a sample size of 1. There is no way to generalize from your experience what the probability is for all. Do you see that?
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago 30
@C0nc0rdance You should probably read my post again, or for the first time if you never read it. I never stated that I think everyone should employ corporeal punishment.
All I said was that your statement that corporeal punishment is always irrational isnt true. With no conclusive evidence (and there isnt any) one way or the other you have to use your individual experience as the decider, so those who experienced corporeal punishment and turned out "okay" will rationally see CP as an option.
passwordresetisbroke 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I fear that in this particular field, the nature of human psychology (and or psychiatry) makes it difficult to draw conclusive links between certain physical punishment methods in childhood and the possible resulting psychological issues of adulthood. The human mind is so complex and the causes behind so many psychoses are so varied that it's inadvisable to draw too many conclusions on the subject. What causes a phobia in one person can cause a philia in another.
Etimos 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance i was just wondering this very thing.how can we know without a doubt that the spankings i got as a child resulted in no harm to me?there is no control group of a ME who did NOT get spanked as a child.
practicalmagic9 5 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke: I once had to arrest a dude with a knife. He stabbed me. I turned out ok, and therefore I now recommend that my experience of turning out "okay" after being skewered in a knife fight indicates that such experience is a net benefit to the person who is stabbed. Studies in this are flawed since so many who have the experience of being stabbed don't live long enough to leave behind a testimonial as to how the experience bettered them. Dead people are so uncooperative.
integralmath 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@passwordresetisbroke: I once had to arrest a dude with a knife. He stabbed me. I turned out ok, and therefore I now recommend that my experience of turning out "okay" after being skewered in a knife fight indicates that such experience is a net benefit to the person who is stabbed. Studies in this are flawed since so many who have the experience of being stabbed don't live long enough to leave behind a testimonial as to how the experience bettered them. Dead people are so uncooperative.
integralmath 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@passwordresetisbroke: I once had to arrest a dude with a knife. He stabbed me. I turned out ok, and therefore I now recommend that my experience of turning out "okay" after being skewered in a knife fight indicates that such experience is a net benefit to the person who is stabbed. Studies in this are flawed since so many who have the experience of being stabbed don't live long enough to leave behind a testimonial as to how the experience bettered them. Dead people are so uncooperative.
integralmath 5 months ago
Erm, about that map around 8:53 ... I'm pretty sure us teachers are NOT allowed to beat or in any way lay hands on a pupil in school here in France. If we would, we'd lose our jobs on the spot. Teachers here risk lawsuits if a pupil hurts himself under their supervision, even when not intentional.
I'm no lawyer, so I wont go into legislation, but beating your kid would make child services act, if it was known.
So yeah, that map aint accurate.
narsil1984 5 months ago
@narsil1984
But... but... Dr. Wikipedia said so. (the source of the map is the Wikipedia page on "Corporal Punishment")
No, it could certainly be in error. The primary source is the "Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children" (?GIEACPC?). It could be the absence of a national law or the presence of a loophole, or simply an oversight or out-of-date figure.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I checked some sites, and it turns out France lacks a clear law against corporal punishment. However, "Abuse" (maltraitance) is stronlgy fought against in the media and also by law, with many abusive parents being sentenced every year apparently.
Also, it seems to be forbidden in schools. I found an unclear article about that, so the law could date 2008.
But, law or no law, "no beating" remains de-facto policy by our almighty ministry of education...
narsil1984 5 months ago
i hate when they mention the old testament vs the new testament. dont they understand that the book is rewritten to best suit the control needed for the time?
campasini 5 months ago
@campasini ...or when they say, "but that's the old testament" while a moment later pointing to the 10 commandments as their moral guide...
DeletedDelusion 5 months ago 2
Your point at the end about spanking and beating is thepoint I was trying to get across in my comments to the Pearls before Swine Promo video. From the number of thumbs up I got, a lot of people agreed, which is gratifying, but certain people refused to understand. I wish I had your way with words.
thebigJ1er 5 months ago
It's fun to watch the decline of Christianity. Too bad it's not here to stay.
Jeffersonwazright 5 months ago
Im amazed that ppl dont seem to realize that by allowing the statement that "For Good ppl to do evil it takes religion" you have just validated the notion that religion can 'save' a person who has done evil. Religion does not cause one to be good or evil, with the richness of information out there, ppl choose to be good or evil by themselves. I do not believe religion caused Gandhi/MLK's behavior so equally I do not believe religion caused evil.
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
@Sunhawk7ajj - What you say is mostly true, especially in the large scale things. However, I know someone who is generally a very good person. They are kind, caring and compassionate, in the general terms. Yet they believe gay people should not be married. That is an evil, causing great injury and trouble to real people in their support of that. They believe they are doing good, they generally do good in nearly every other way. I think this people like that are who the quote refers to.
Jaelra 5 months ago
@Jaelra Hmm.. I am of the opinion that you can believe what ever you want for yourself as long as you dont impose it on others. You dont believe in gay marriages - fine don't marry gays, just dont try to stop the rights of other based on personal belief. I would say this individual has a personal prejudice and is not will to go beyond their comfort zone, they choose to allow bias and discrimination. Thus they as individuals are held responsible for their actions.
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
Comment removed
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
@Jaelra I generally tell these ppl, stop hiding behind religion, It is YOU that chooses to be prejudice. so at least have the guts to own up to it.
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
@Sunhawk7ajj-you have just validated the notion that religion can 'save' a person who has done evil.
I think what it validates, if anything, is the notion that religion can prevent evil people from doing evil. I'm willing to grant that yes there are sociopaths who don't rape, and murder because they fear God's eternal punishment. In fact I think that Christianities message that we are all inherently evil might resonate with them.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
(cont)
In fact when I hear a theist say "if it weren't for God there would be nothing to stop me from raping, and murdering", I don't assume it's just hyperbole, and suggest to them that, if that's true, they do us all a favor, and keep right on believing. :p
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
Continued...
That being said I think the evil that religion promotes, and justifies, is far greater than the evil it might prevent.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Well if you accept that validation... there is no issue. I just don't except the argument either way. And I do believe that though they say they would do bad, a theist without 'religion' in reality would find another excuse NOT to do bad things. I go with the individual as accountable for their actions, as at the end of the day the only thing a sane human being can control is themselves.
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
@Sunhawk7ajj-I do believe that though they say they would do bad, a theist without 'religion' in reality would find another excuse NOT to do bad things.
I wish I could be so optimistic, but looking into their eyes, and the sincerity with which they seem to say it, and given that up to 4% of people suffer from antisocial personality disorder. I see no good reason not to take their word for it when they say it.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Ah well, Im from one of the most optimistic countries on earth. Lol! So Im okay with that.
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
Continued...
I suppose I better clarify before someone comes along, and doesn't follow the thread properly. I'm referring to those theists who specifically say they would start killing, and raping if they didn't believe God existed.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@Sunhawk7ajj-I just don't except the argument either way.
Having thought over what you said I have to say I have a really difficult time believing that you don't think the threat of eternal punishment would deter crime? I mean I'd be pretty damn tempted to rob a bank if prison wasn't a possibility.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist AND that validates the idea that religion is needed for moral development. People as social beings are hardwired for group advancement. My argument is that in a society where there is enough info for one to KNOW that an act is wrong/illegal/etc the allowance for religion/race/upbringing etc to be used as an excuse for behavior negates responsibility. As ppl with discrimination, when you fail to apply it to a situation and act where consequences are clear, YOU are responsible.
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
@Sunhawk7ajj-AND that validates the idea that religion is needed for moral development.
All it means is that some people, who either think they can avoid the law, or have little fear of finite punishment, might be deterred from crime.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist So when it doesn't deter a life of crime can they equally use that as a defense?
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
Sorry C0nc0rdance, but thumbs down. Your example at the end was so poor that it could not redeem the rest. Almost all criminals seek to minimize their crimes. Rapists try argue their act was consentual. Does that negate consentual sex? Those who commit assault often try to claim it was self-defense. Does this invalidate defending oneself? I want non-atheists to know that his views ARE HIS OWN & do not represent ANY trend in atheism. Atheists SHOULD NOT attach THEIR pet peeves to the rest of us.
YOURINQUIRER 5 months ago
I'm not comfortable with the supposed truism of "...that takes religion".
It's perfectly possible for 'good' people to do plenty of 'evil' when following *any* reality-challenged philosophy or ideology, it's not simply limited to religion. You can't just post-hoc categorize any ideology that makes 'good' people do 'evil' things as an "religious" ideology.
I'm an iron-hard gnostic atheist, but that phrase always bothers me.
MrCattlehunter 5 months ago
@MrCattlehunter "an" religious ideology? Way to fail grammar, self!
MrCattlehunter 5 months ago
Jesus, he is so loving "...I will kill her children with PESTILENCE..."
Jesus abuse the little children of the world? Nope! KILL THEM WITH PESTILENCE... Yep.
Now let all the little children sing,
Jesus will kill me for the Bible tells me so...
IntelligentProbe 5 months ago
Jesus, he is so loving "...I will kill her children with PESTILENCE..."
Jesus abuse the little children of the world? Nope! KILL THEM WITH PESTILENCE... Yep.
Now let all the little children sing,
Jesus will kill me for the Bible tells me so...
IntelligentProbe 5 months ago
Perhaps Jesus never beat children when he was on earth, but as soon as he got back to heaven, he started killing them for the sins of their parents;
Rev 2:22-23 'Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 'And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
IntelligentProbe 5 months ago
After watching this video, I re-read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omleas"
Thanks C0nc0rdance for that.
ShikaNinja 5 months ago
also i think in this case the two parents should be charged with manslaughter or something like that, and go to prison for a really, really long time.
kurtilein3 5 months ago
i think there should be a mandatory prison sentence of 2 years, during which parents are NOT allowed any contact to their children, for any kind of spanking / hitting / beating. Would be better for the children and the parents, the children might learn that there are people in the world that are NOT violent bastards, and the parents learn that if they keep spanking their children and go to prison for 2 years each time someone finds out, they just wont be the ones raising their children.
kurtilein3 5 months ago
Wait what? Who the fuck has "supernatural voices" in their head? Woooow. You people really are fucked up thinking that we think that. o.O
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
A majority of Christian sects are not in favor of corporal punishment. This is what happens when a backwater community is allowed to run a Church that would preach a misinterpretation of the Bible. The message is to love. The scriptures that say to beat your children are old world traditions. Do I have to keep repeating myself about Mark 7:6-15? e.e
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign-A majority of Christian sects are not in favor of corporal punishment.
Even if that's true, the states that allow corporal punishment in US schools are exclusively in the bile belt, and whenever the argument is made that corporal punishment should be outlawed as it is in most civilized western nations, "spare the rob spoil the child" is trotted out as justification, and it's framed by Christians as a religious freedom issue.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago 3
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist "the states that allow corporal punishment in US schools are exclusively in the bile belt, "
That is a blind insinuation without proof. I went to a school that used corporal punishment and was separate from any Church being involved.
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign-That is a blind insinuation without proof.
If you had simply Googled US states that allow corporal punishment in schools before commenting, you could have avoided making yourself look like an idiot.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago 4
Continued...
Or better yet go to Wikipedia School_corporal_punishment, and see the map on the top right.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago 3
(cont)
Christianity drives support for corporal punishment in the same way it drives opposition to gay marriage. In fact the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" is such a powerful meme, that it infects those who consider themselves non-religious almost as strongly as it does the religious. To the point that it (contrary to scientific evidence) is accepted as fact.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago 7
Continued...
Also according to a joint report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union the worst offenders in terms of corporal punishment (more than 10,000 incidents) are "coincidentally" the most religious states.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago 2
@TheNakedAtheist Around 60% are against it. The rest do not have a tag attached saying Property of God. e.e Some may but to categorize us all as being "that way" is a bigoted insult against our culture.
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign
It is not bigoted to point out the fact that Christianity bolsters corporal punishment, as it does opposition to gay marriage. We can't allow the truth to be ignored, or pretend it doesn't exist because some people may use it to support their bigotry. The opposition to gay marriage in national polls I've seen recently is at just around 50% obviously not all Christians oppose it or it would be at 80%+.
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago 2
@TheNakedAtheist Yes it is, especially when you categorize all Christians under the same profile.
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign-Yes it is
Did you even read my comment, or are you really arguing that facts are bigoted?
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist When you categorize the individual Christian among the rest, that is being stereotypical. A stereotypical view point is an emotional derivation of bigotry. You find something wrong with the religion. The problem is that there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity. Lately, more have become less denominational, and less indoctrinated to older world customs. Christianity has moved into a new age of understanding the message of God as a whole.
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign That's great, when's the new age bible going to be released?
TekLok 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign Calling someone a bigot doesn't invalidate their points, and pretending that Christianity has never held a pro-corporal punishment or anti-gay viewpoint is downright lying. However, you've gone further and combined the two in a beautiful little string of circular logic; that Msr. TheNakedAtheist is a bigot because he generalizes Christians, and is thus wrong, which thus negates his point, which means that Christians don't hold pro-corporal punishment viewpoints, etcetc.
PhobicOne 5 months ago
@PhobicOne It certainly compromises their argument. To show any sort of disregard out of disgust for any culture due to the lack of understanding it fully as those raised within that social environment, can easily be justified as a bigoted act. This makes their argument more illusive and just an emotionally driven opinion.
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign No, their arguments stand on their own merits. Newton, who was undoubtedly one of the brightest minds in the world, went loopy towards the end and pursued a bunch of stupid things, including alchemy. His obsession with alchemy does not weaken the foundations for mathematics and physics which he laid. The fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was a notorious boozehound and womanizer does not make his movement any less courageous and revolutionary.
PhobicOne 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign-when you categorize all Christians under the same profile.
And clearly that's not what I'm doing, but you go right ahead, and play your little "accuse someone of bigotry in an attempt to discredit their valid argument" game. I find it amusing. :-)
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNakedAtheist See you find amusement in straw manning people in hopes that you will deceive them. There is everything dishonest and inhumane with this. You really don't know much about God. I suggest you get therapy to control this attitude you have towards people that have a different belief. You being butt hurt over something in the Bible that you disagree with, doesn't make it false!
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@TheStigmadeign-You being butt hurt over something in the Bible that you disagree with, doesn't make it false!
WTF? That makes no sense whatsoever. lol
TheNakedAtheist 5 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Then you must be illiterate.
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago
@EmpyrealStorm Well, if one is asked the question "is it moral for a woman to be forced to marry the man who raped her, yes or no?" This is not very complicated. However, it is a problem for the Theist. If he answers yes he will be admitting that he condones this action. If he answers no he will be inplying that the Bible is not 100% moral, there are some immoral bits. So the Theist must employ apologetics to get around this apparent empasse, and try to put it some sort of context.
helical4 5 months ago
The contents of this video strikes a chord with me.
When the story of Beardy McChildbeater and his stupid wife came out I saw a lot of comments about how a good spanking was good for children. In particular there was one father who admitted doing it to his two daughters.
I said if I knew where he was I'd send child services to get his kids. He got absolutely enraged. "I can control my anger just fine!", but he flies into a rage easily and spanks his kids? I pity them. I hope they're okay.
EdwardHowton 5 months ago
How are there more likes than views? That makes no sense
globalfraud 5 months ago
@globalfraud That is a good question. Do they count the likes in the comments? cause I have liked comments without viewing the vid, from the comments page.
Sunhawk7ajj 5 months ago
i died laughing at the image of the baby duct taped to the wall. whoops i mean, that's not funny...
frustratedlogician 5 months ago
this is pretty much what I've been saying, the bible makes it clear that beating a child is completely okay and sometimes needs to be done to death. Amazing how these fundies gloss over this.
Dudeatheist 5 months ago
You are just telling it like it is with no grey areas.
77Totems 5 months ago