I was going to stay out of it, but if the topic is this active, I'm going to jump in. Yes, this is TLDR. Cliffs at the bottom.


(1) I think personal anecdotes are fine to share, but obviously they should not be the basis for determining whether something is okay or not. So the way that people's kids or people themselves turned out is not a good or useful determinant. Some people who were spanked as kids turn out "okay" or "good" and some don't. Some people who were not spanked as kids turn out "okay" or "good" and some don't. Some people who were spanked as kids will spank as parents and some won't. Some people who were not spanked as kids will spank as parents and some won't. None of this matters.

(2) Let's be clear what we are talking about. "Spanking" is intentionally hitting a child in order to cause physical pain, as a consequence and method of discipline. The whole point is to cause them physical harm in order to get them to comply with what the parent wants.

(3) Generally, we almost all agree that intentionally causing physical harm/pain non-consensually to any other person is wrong.

(4) To go against this self-evident principle, one must provide a robust justification, such as self-defense or something else similarly warranted. But the burden of proof is on the person justifying the physical harm, it's not enough to say "I think it's okay, you have to prove me wrong."

(5) Generally, we do not think a person hitting another person as a consequence is acceptable, even when that person is an authority figure and the offender has done wrong. We do not think it is okay for a boss to hit an employee who breaks rules. We do not think it is okay for a judge to cane a person who has broken the law, even if some other countries do otherwise. If these are our standards for adults, they should at least equally apply to children, in fact, young children should be protected even more, as the most vulnerable among us.

(6) Generally, we do not think that any other adult striking a child as a consequence is acceptable. We no longer think that it is okay for teachers to spank students for rude behavior (even behaviors that might be outlawed in the child's home, or that those parents might themselves spank for). We do not think that police should strike kids for shoplifting. And so on.

(7) For some reason, some parents believe that they alone should be able to hit their children. But that belief does not apply to almost anything else. Any other action a parent has is usually given to others when others are in charge of their kids. Babysitters can take away TV/screen privileges, or preschool teachers can give timeouts, etc, but do not hit my kid, "only I can do that." This sentiment alone points to the understanding that perhaps spanking is not okay, and something that shouldn't be done, but somehow is magically okay if the parent themself does it. Why? What justifies the parent doing it, when it is not okay for any other authority figure to do it? What other things than spanking are like this?

(8) Effectivity is not a good justification. The ends do not justify the means. A particular parent could think that burning their kids is okay ("just mild burns on the limbs, nothing outrageous or that would leave lasting physical marks"), or lightly cutting them, or choking them out until unconscious, etc. None of these are okay. Even if they are effective and get a child to stop a certain behavior. The same logic applies to spanking. A child's compliance does not justify physical harm to them, even if it is "minor" harm.

(9) Some people claim that it is a last resort, and nothing else will work. This is usually false, as not every other thing has been tried. And often times, spanking itself does not "work". And even if it did, it would not justify it, or else one could justify all manner of unacceptable punishments. "Choking her out is a last resort and the only thing that works." This is just a variation of the effectivity argument, which was shown not to be a moral justification.

(10) Conclusion: Hitting a child to cause pain, i.e. spanking, is not morally justifiable. For those who believe otherwise, what is your counter to the above, and what is the moral justification?

-----

Cliffs: intentionally causing physical harm/pain non-consensually to any other person is wrong, even (and especially?!) if that person is a child and even if it is effective. Pro-"just try hitting them" advocates have not provided sufficient justification for this action, if one exists.

As an example of how spanking is not justified in proponents' posts, I have substituted another physical punishment into an example post. The obvious point applies to most other posts made by proponents. Below I am not making fun of HT, I simply chose it because it was one of the first posts on the topic, and I think he'd be okay with it, with the understanding that I am making this point in good faith.


I was belted once by my father and choked out several times, all deserved. I’ve choked out one of my sons once and the other one never, although Mrs. P choked out the second son once. Both sons agree that the choke-outs were justified and have no quarrel that they occurred. Choke-outs IMO can be and are fine, but should not be done out of anger or frustration, but rather as a method of emphasizing that immediate compliance with certain instructions is necessary. With son number one, I choked him out after he bit me for the third time and where he had been warned after the second that a third was going to get a choke-out. It was clear that he did not believe me, to his woe. Biting immediately and permanently stopped. With son number two, he released the restraint holding down his car seat for the third or fourth time.

I look forward to not having kids, and I think the world feels the same. The reason I wouldn't hit kids is because inducing fight-or-flight is like starting a wildfire in their emotions - less buzzword - it's going to alter the way their neurons work. I can't depend on 'positive reinforcement' to shape things back to their best function. It's really something that Jmakin (great guy) off the cuff came up with a solution to the biting problem that people can joke about, but sounds far better than physical intimidation. I bet that isn't the only solution either. And again - awesome anecdotes from great people - less than one in a million parents are in their strata. I wish I could've been belted by HT or DI growing up. You guys are more than welcome to now

So far OOT is anti-spanking, but pro-strangulation and lemon parties.

I'm so glad I haven't had kids. Similar to the lemon punishment, one of my sisters has 3 kids. They are all very well behaved and good kids. The middle one though, she is stubborn. I don't think they've actually had to follow through on the threat, but Tabasco is the lemon for her. When she gets told over and over again to do/not do something and just keeps on they go get the bottle of Tabasco and whatever bad behavior is going on instantly stops. I want to say they claim to have never used it, but how can Tabasco be so effective if she's never tried it?

Not a big fan of spanking difficult kids, although I don't think it can be THAT terrible when it happens like it did in HT's context.

One thing I'm pretty sure of though, is that it's much easier to have very strong opinions regarding spanking when you don't have kids (or difficult kids) yourself.

I was spanked (or smacked) as a kid (by both parents and teachers) and turned out fine. It was certainly the discipline that I needed to pull up my socks and straighten up. There should be more of it in this day and age.

Bundy5 is the WOAT.

Nah he's just a terrible troll

choking is not spanking.

Muffin rankings:

1. Blueberry
2. Chocolate Chip
3. Lemon Poppy
4. Cinnamon Crumb
5. Cranberry Orange

Others receiving votes: Cream Cheese, English, Chocolate Chocolate

Hard pass on Banana Nut, but I understand the appeal to Philistines.

Breakfast ranking go:

Tacos, then steak, then chicken fried steak, followed by chik-fil-a, burritos bring up the rear.

Tacos for breakfast? I'm listening.

Correct. You may proceed to the next chamber.

Before I move all this riveting talk to Yak's thread, what is the consensus on corporal punishment in school?

Here is USA#1 it is pretty common in the Dirty South to sign documentation allowing teachers/principals to strike your child with hands/belts/paddles and whatnot as a form of discipline. Lol Dirty South, but still common in 2019.

Something like this



Not this:

Oh, nevermind then. Carry on.

Patron,

Interesting post and definitely worthwhile. I’ll respond in some detail but I need to do some reading first.

Your Friend

Howard

Gotta make a deposit to the ol' spank bank first, amirite?

ITT I've learned that a quick swat on the butt is the same as a MMA match.

Some of you are obv trolling/joking and some of you have really poor comprehension and logic skills. The responses are pretty much what I expected, making it a highly successful set of posts.

At this point all I have to do is mouth the word "kimura" and my kids are in immediate compliance.

My kids go to Gracie University, but I guess I'd better send them to Kimura Academy if they want to fight micro's kids!

Fillings are A+, but I'm disappointed that the Tortilla Nazi himself posted that sad thing... no char at all? Did they microwave the poor tortilla?

They make them fresh at the place. You don't need char for a fresh made flour tortilla. If you are ever in Austin it's probably one of the best BBQ places in town, and therefore the world. Valentina's tex mex bbq, it's far away from from Austin stuff though. It is annoying, no matter how good, to pay $6 for a breakfast taco.