This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
When did I say the answer to the problem is taking children away from their parents? You mandate parenting classes, you make them go to counseling, you inconvenience them with a mandatory social worker visit every week. There are many, many things that can be done to make parents less likely to hit their kids. This is why you don't base moral decisions off of a general sense of pragmatism. Because unless you have gone through and shown where every intervention leads to a bad outcome, you haven't done enough to make a decision based on pragmatism.
Idk, it just doesn't seem that practical to me. And even on a purely moral ground, I have a problem with the government telling people what to do with their kids if it's something this subjective. If there was a consensus that all forms of physical punishment are harmful that would be one thing, but we're hardly at that point.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I have a problem with the government telling people what to do with their kids if it's something this subjective.
This makes very little sense to me, and that's saying a lot coming from me. I am a practicing libertarian with my political views encompassing minarchism bordering on anarchy. I hold no love for the government, and even less love for governments that interfere in people's lives about subjective matters. But even with all that, your sentence there just doesn't make sense to me.
If there is
any
reason to have a government, it's to protect its citizens. And if there is any citizen that is in need of protection the most, it's children. It's a no-brainer to me. If children are getting hurt, you immediately make a law to stop it. The practicality, effectiveness, and morality of the various punishments is a secondary issue that is perfectly fine to work out and debate about. But why is there any debate about whether we as a nation should just let kids be hit simply because they are under the arbitrary age of 18?
Post by
Gone
I have a problem with the government telling people what to do with their kids if it's something this subjective.
This makes very little sense to me, and that's saying a lot coming from me. I am a practicing libertarian with my political views encompassing minarchism bordering on anarchy. I hold no love for the government, and even less love for governments that interfere in people's lives about subjective matters. But even with all that, your sentence there just doesn't make sense to me.
If there is
any
reason to have a government, it's to protect its citizens. And if there is any citizen that is in need of protection the most, it's children. It's a no-brainer to me. If children are getting hurt, you immediately make a law to stop it. The practicality, effectiveness, and morality of the various punishments is a secondary issue that is perfectly fine to work out and debate about. But why is there any debate about whether we as a nation should just let kids be hit simply because they are under the arbitrary age of 18?
That's because you have an already established stance here. You're speaking with an assumption in mind that smacking children is so criminally wrong that it has to be stopped. Some parents believe that physical punishment is a legitimate way to raise their children. Even among those who don't, there are many who believe that while physical punishment is wrong, there is a point that it can go up to before it constitutes abuse. I'm not saying I agree with any of them, or with you, but with so much of a non-consensus over the issue, I don't believe that it's time to pass a law. And even if it was, a law has to take practicality into account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why does non-consensus matter? The point is that kids are being hit, the law has clearly established that in any other circumstance that would be assault, and there is no unquestionable evidence that children should not be afforded the same protection. That's is the argument I've brought to the table. The fact that someone disagrees with that doesn't magically make it a subjective point. There needs to be an equally objective argument brought against it.
Post by
Gone
the law has clearly established that in any other circumstance that would be assault, and there is no unquestionable evidence that children should not be afforded the same protection.
This isn't true at all. An adult who retains guardianship of a child is, in effect, holding a position of custodial authority over them. In situations where one adult is in the legal custody of another, physical violence is not only allowed to maintain order, but it's allowed in much more extreme quantities. Prison guards are allowed to beat inmates with clubs and spray them with mace and tear gas, attendants in hospitals and mental health facilities are allowed to physically restrain people, drug then against their will, and throw them in straight jackets.
And before you go there, no, this is not always done as a matter of safety. Prison guards are allowed to pepper spray inmates for something as trivial as hanging a sheet over their cell.
Now if an adult were to go up and smack another person's child, they would of course be charged with assault, which is more akin to the kind of example you've suggesting.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I shouldn't have used the word "any", but clearly you're grasping at fringe cases. If I go repeatedly hit an adult outside for saying a cuss word, I am assaulting him, I am breaking the law, and I will be punished for it. If I hit my adult child for the same thing, the exact same consequence stand. But if I hit my underage child in that scenario, the child has no protection under the law, simply because he is a child. Yet there has been no evidence brought to the table to demonstrate that a child is should not be allowed that same protection.
If you want to claim that prison guards can hit prisoners, then you need to provide the same demonstration. Mental health patients? Same. I'm not here to defend or condemn those circumstances at the moment, so those demonstrations don't really interest me. What interests me is a demonstration that children should not be protected under the same laws that a
reasonable person
would.
Post by
Squishalot
Since the banning of the cane in schools, and I will concede, the cane was probably excessive, a lot of kids no longer fear or respect teachers.
It's a fairly cultural sort of thing though. The lack of respect for teachers / authority starts at home, I think. If you look at the Asian population in Australia, they have huge respect for teachers, because their family structures put so much focus on education and learning.
Of course, those same family structures are also often big believers in spanking and caning at home too, so there may be a correlation there, lol. But even those families that don't have a big physical punishment system at home still end up with a healthy respect for authority.
Post by
Gone
I shouldn't have used the word "any", but clearly you're grasping at fringe cases. If I go repeatedly hit an adult outside for saying a cuss word, I am assaulting him, I am breaking the law, and I will be punished for it. If I hit my adult child for the same thing, the exact same consequence stand. But if I hit my underage child in that scenario, the child has no protection under the law, simply because he is a child. Yet there has been no evidence brought to the table to demonstrate that a child is should not be allowed that same protection.
How do they represent fringe cases? They are much more similar in authority to a parent/child relationship than anything you've brought up.
Your whole argument is based around the example of two autonomous adults involved in an altercation. It's not the same situation as a parent child, so whatever the law says about that situation is completely irrelevant. Your trying to say "X is illegal in situation Y, therefor A should also be illegal in situation B." One adult assaulting another is too different in too many ways from a parent spanking their child. The situation needs to be examined on its own.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's not the same situation as a parent child
That is where evidence has yet to be provided. What about that particular relationship nullifies the protection we give the average citizen? What about being a child takes away the protections that would otherwise be granted to you under the law?
Post by
Gone
It's not the same situation as a parent child
That is where evidence has yet to be provided. What about that particular relationship nullifies the protection we give the average citizen? What about being a child takes away the protections that would otherwise be granted to you under the law?
Nothing about being a child, in and of itself, nullifies those protections. I feel like you keep coming back to that, as though the age difference is the only factor at play here. If I went outside, and smacked my neighbors child upside the head, I would be charged with assault. The age difference has nothing to do with the difference in circumstances.
The difference between one adult assaulting a child, or another adult, and a parent spanking their child, is that the parent is in a position of guardianship and authority over the child. I'm not saying whether this gives them the right to spank their child or not, that isn't my argument here. But what I'm saying is that A) it
is
a different situation than one adult assaulting another, so the argument that since the law restricts adults from hitting each other, parents can't hit their children is an oversimplification of the circumstances. And B) this is something that should be at a consensus or near consensus, or at the very least a majority favored option before the state can intervene and pass a law that restricts any form of parental spanking.
On a different note I would also like to address some of the so called studies that people brought up earlier. In almost every study I have seen about the psychological effects of corporal punishment, many of the cases involved displayed much more serious cases of violence and abuse than simply spanking or slapping, as mentioned in this article. I have yet to see any majority of conclusive evidence that says spanking alone will cause children serious problems when they grow up.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Nothing about being a child, in and of itself, nullifies those protections.
Actually it does. You forcibly spank your 18-year-old and you can be taken to court for assault. You forcibly spank your 8-year-old and it's okay. Age is clearly the one and only defining factor in this instance. Hitting other people's kids is another whole thing that can be dealt with, but it's not the comparison I've been making. I've simply been dealing with the age factor, which clearly is a defining factor.
Post by
Gone
Age is clearly the one and only defining factor in this instance.
No it's not. The defining factor is that the child is still under the legal custody of the parents, and as soon as he or she turns 18, that ends. In many cases this custody is subject to age, but age still isn't the defining factor, as seen in cases of, for example, emancipated minors.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't understand what you're arguing. You keep going to fringe cases to argue against things they have no application to. Yes there are 17 year olds who have legal autonomy. Yes there are 19 year olds who still have a legal guardian. But that is irrelevant to the case where you can hit your 8 year old but not your 18 year old. The basis for determining the different between those two actions originates in the age difference. The law does not currently protect that 8 year old from the same action that would be considered assault on the 18 year old. Why? Because he hasn't turned 18 yet (or in fringe cases obtained legal autonomy before that age). You can argue fringe cases all you want, but that does not change the fact that the law protects your average 18 year old in ways it does not protect your average 8 year old, and you have yet to provide proper evidence for accepting that. If you're not going to argue for that, what do you hope to accomplish?
Post by
Gone
The basis for determining the difference is not based on age, it's based on one of the individuals being in someone else's custody, and the other not being in that circumstance. Again, custody may often be subject to age, but that doesn't make age the defining characteristic. I bring up prisoners, people in the custody of hospitals, and emancipated minors in order to show you that age is not the determinant factor, custody is. You keep labeling everything that doesn't fit with your age argument "fringe," but I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by doing that. Just because its a less common occurrence that doesn't mean it has no bearing on the argument. If you want a more common example I would use teachers. Idk about overseas, but in the US, teachers are not allowed to spank children. If age were the only determinant here then they would be, but as I have said, and tried to illustraight with examples, it's custody, not age, that is the determinant factor.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Since the banning of the cane in schools, and I will concede, the cane was probably excessive, a lot of kids no longer fear or respect teachers.
It's a fairly cultural sort of thing though. The lack of respect for teachers / authority starts at home, I think. If you look at the Asian population in Australia, they have huge respect for teachers, because their family structures put so much focus on education and learning.
Of course, those same family structures are also often big believers in spanking and caning at home too, so there may be a correlation there, lol. But even those families that don't have a big physical punishment system at home still end up with a healthy respect for authority.
They do tend to have a much stricter upbringing. So I believe there is a correlation there.
So again - is that the school's fault for banning the cane, or the parents' fault for relying on the schools to enforce a culture of respect?
That's what I mean about it starting at home.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The basis for determining the difference is not based on age, it's based on one of the individuals being in someone else's custody, and the other not being in that circumstance. Again, custody may often be subject to age, but that doesn't make age the defining characteristic. I bring up prisoners, people in the custody of hospitals, and emancipated minors in order to show you that age is not the determinant factor, custody is. You keep labeling everything that doesn't fit with your age argument "fringe," but I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by doing that. Just because its a less common occurrence that doesn't mean it has no bearing on the argument. If you want a more common example I would use teachers. Idk about overseas, but in the US, teachers are not allowed to spank children. If age were the only determinant here then they would be, but as I have said, and tried to illustraight with examples, it's custody, not age, that is the determinant factor.
Clearly, you're not going to actually provide the argument that I'm asking for and are just going to keep on this age tangent. And it's getting late, so this is the last I'll say on the matter.
This is your argument:
There are cases that age is not a factor in determining if you're allowed to hit someone
Therefore age is never a factor in determining if you're not allowed to hit someone
This is my argument:
You can hit the average 8 year old, but cannot hit him 10 years later as an average adult
Therefore age is determining factor in these cases.
The difference is that you you are making a universal claim based on demonstrably fringe cases while I am making a specific claim about an average case. Yours holds no logical validity, while mine is fine logically but can be undermined by proper evidence which I've asked for but have not gotten.
The crux of it is this: hitting your average child on his 8th birthday, his 10th birthday, his 15th birthday, his 17th birthday is all legal and generally accepted by a vast swath of the population. However hit that same child on his 18th birthday or any time after, and you would be guilty of assault and would be prosecuted under the law. The law and society clearly assumes that there is something about that 17 year old that makes him ineligible for protection under the law from an assault he would protected from a year later. Why? Why do we allow our minors to be assaulted? What evidence can you provide that would sufficiently defend a universal acceptance of this action? This is the issue you have yet to address. If you don't want to address it, fine. But know that is why it is impossible for me to accept someone saying that it's subjective and that we shouldn't have laws against it when they can't give any evidence for it.
Post by
Squishalot
HSR, I think Ryja's point is that while you see it as a direct relationship to age, he sees it as an issue of guardianship, of which age happens to be a factor.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
HSR, I think Ryja's point is that while you see it as a direct relationship to age, he sees it as an issue of guardianship, of which age happens to be a factor.
Which is exactly what I summed up in the bullet point above.
I understand what he's saying, that's not a problem. I'm frustrated that he thinks the current tangent has any relevance to issue and still hasn't provided any sort of argument that deals with the crux of the issue.
Anyway, like I said, it's late and I have work.
Post by
Gone
You are the one making universal claims here, not me. I brought up these "fringe" cases, as you call them, to try and demonstrate to you that legally, the distinction is not a matter of age. They were a point of refutation, not something I was using to strengthen my own point. You are oversimplifying the argument, and the examples you give, as well as leaving out factors. For example:
You can hit the average 8 year old, but cannot hit him 10 years later as an average adult
The right way of saying this would be You can hit the average 8 year old, if you are his parent or legal guardian, however 10 years later, when he's no longer in your custody, this would constitute assault.
You haven't been saying age is
a
factor, you've been saying that age is
the
factor. And when I bring up examples to prove it's not, you write them off as "fringe." A teacher or neighbor cannot a hit an 8 year old child, but a parent can. Is age the difference there? No. the child is the same age in every scenario, it's a matter of custody. I also want to respond to this:
This is your argument:
There are cases that age is not a factor in determining if you're allowed to hit someone
Therefore age is never a factor in determining if you're not allowed to hit someone
I've said several times that custody, which is the dominant factor, is often subject to age. I never once said that age is never a factor.
I'm frustrated that he thinks the current tangent has any relevance to issue and still hasn't provided any sort of argument that deals with the crux of the issue.
You're argument has been that the law should provide the same protection to children that it does to adults, since age is an arbitrary distinction. My argument has been that age is not the distinction used, that it's a matter of custody, which means the laws governing autonomous adults in protection from assault doesn't automatically apply in the same way to parental spankings, because it's not the same situation. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws protecting children, but it's not under the same umbrella as adults in a similar situation.
I've said multiple times that I haven't made up my mind yet on physical punishment.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.