Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (1 Viewer)

[scarybunny]

I said "if".


Young children (say, under 5 or 6) do not understand consequences that are explained to them. I'm teaching kindergarten and year 1 at the moment, and they understand consequences in terms of what they already know. "You'll get hit by a car" means nothing to them, because they haven't experienced it.

If you've successfully used the naughty corner or sending them to their room as punishment beforehand, it should work in these situations as well and smacking should not be needed. But what if that doesn't work for your child?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I said "if".


Young children (say, under 5 or 6) do not understand consequences that are explained to them. I'm teaching kindergarten and year 1 at the moment, and they understand consequences in terms of what they already know. "You'll get hit by a car" means nothing to them, because they haven't experienced it.

If you've successfully used the naughty corner or sending them to their room as punishment beforehand, it should work in these situations as well and smacking should not be needed. But what if that doesn't work for your child?

Well then that's because of your previous failings as a parent. Be a bit creative, there's lots of ways to punish a child that don't involve violence. Even just yelling at them is often enough to scare them and make them realize they have done something wrong.

Also if a child is so young that they can't understand dangers like traffic, they definitely should not be crossing the road without holding your hand, or anywhere near a hot stove without your constant supervision. So once again, the need to smack them to protect them is questionable, you should already be vigilant and ready to protect them anyway.

Your argument seems to be IF parents are totally lazy and incompetent, maybe hitting children is the only last resort that can keep them safe.

 

[*TRUE*]

Well then that's because of your previous failings as a parent. Be a bit creative, there's lots of ways to punish a child that don't involve violence. Even just yelling at them is often enough to scare them and make them realize they have done something wrong.

Also if a child is so young that they can't understand dangers like traffic, they definitely should not be crossing the road without holding your hand, or anywhere near a hot stove without your constant supervision. So once again, the need to smack them to protect them is questionable, you should already be vigilant and ready to protect them anyway.

Your argument seems to be IF parents are totally lazy and incompetent, maybe hitting children is the only last resort that can keep them safe.

I've already explained this; and you misunderstood scarybunny.Shouting at young toddlers is likely to harm the relationship between parent and a gentle child - a toddler will not neccessarily realise that the shouting has anything to do with the inappropriate action, instead believing the anger is directed at them. Also, a more strong natured child will NOT be intimidated by shouting. It's a threat, adn they enjoy challenging others. These toddlers NEED to experience a consequence in order to respect the authority of a parent. Without it, they'll happily defy away.Yes, first up, all parents should be vigilant in protecting children from potentially dangerous situation.However, trying to avoid dangerous situation is not, in itself, enough.For example : power outlets. In my experience toddlers are weirdly attracted to these potentially life threatening household neccessities. Absolutely, put up protective barriers. But what about at the homes of friends? Family? Shops? What if a particularly ingenious and determined toddler gets the barrier off? (lol yes, has happened).Short of watching a child 24/7 (impossible, anyway) what other deterrent is there? A little smack soon teaches a young child that power outlets are potentially painful, and should not be touched. As they get older, things like this can be explained.

 

[*TRUE*]

Nonsense.

If you're close enough to the child to administer a smack, you're close enough to grab them and physically restrain them from running onto the road.

Hitting them will teach them nothing. You need to explain to the child that the road is dangerous and they could be hit by a car and injured or killed.

Oh, you wally! I already explained this also! A young toddler does not have the cognitive ability to understand HYPOTHETICAL OR POTENTIAL situations.Explaining that a car might hit and kill them is ludicrous - how well do you think toddlers understand physics and mortality?Yes, you can restrain the child and so you should, aswell as remove them from the situation if possible.But you mistakenly assume that children are without their own ambition and agenda. In fact they are quite often very determined and love a challenge. Restraining and removing them alone only slows them down a bit, its grossly irresponsible to have no other method of teaching them about a dangerous situation.

 

[John McCain]

Well I seriously doubt whether a 4 year old would be able to make a genuine attempt at running away from home. But if they were that determined to leave home at such a young age, it would indicate something seriously wrong with the parents, and it would probably be very dangerous to force them to go back to the control of such parents.

If a child chooses to leave home and support themselves, or to find other parents or guardians who are willing to support them, their age should not be used as a reason to force them to live with their parents.

There is no reason to assume that parents are competent and know what is best for their child, or that they are better guardians of the child the someone who is not the child's biological parents.

If a parent has failed to care for the child appropriately, and the child has good reason to wish to leave, another authoritarian organisation, the state, is best able to judge whose care the child should be placed in.

If the child alone is allowed to choose who they live with, they are liable to be lured by skilled predators.

The state has far greater information available to it, and the ability to rationally assess this information, in the way a child does not.

A childs autonomy must be restricted for their own safety.

 

[*TRUE*]

If a parent has failed to care for the child appropriately, and the child has good reason to wish to leave, another authoritarian organisation, the state, is best able to judge whose care the child should be placed in.

If the child alone is allowed to choose who they live with, they are liable to be lured by skilled predators.

The state has far greater information available to it, and the ability to rationally assess this information, in the way a child does not.

A childs autonomy must be restricted for their own safety.

I agree.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

If a parent has failed to care for the child appropriately, and the child has good reason to wish to leave, another authoritarian organisation, the state, is best able to judge whose care the child should be placed in.

If the child alone is allowed to choose who they live with, they are liable to be lured by skilled predators.

The state has far greater information available to it, and the ability to rationally assess this information, in the way a child does not.

A childs autonomy must be restricted for their own safety.

Obviously I believe private security organizations could do a better job, but this is not the thread for discussing that.

I would agree that the state intervening is a better alternative than parents having an assumed right to control their children.

 

[scarybunny]

Why don't we just take children off parents when they're babies, raise them in large state-funded people-farms and release them back into the real world when they've been trained to think for themselves?

 

[John McCain]

Obviously I believe private security organizations could do a better job, but this is not the thread for discussing that.

How would that work? Under your belief in a right of autonomy for children, a private security organisation would only be able to negotiate and advertise to children to try to convince them to take advantage of rehousing services.

Pedophiles could set up their own security organisation, that lures children with offers of money and other rewards. Of course, if a child decides they want to go with this pedophile security organisation, they should be entitled to, never mind their complete inability to investigate and understand the true nature of this organisation beyond the attractive surface level.

Why don't we just take children off parents when they're babies, raise them in large state-funded people-farms and release them back into the real world when they've been trained to think for themselves?

Gonna scare some crows with that strawman you're building.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

How would that work? Under your belief in a right of autonomy for children, a private security organisation would only be able to negotiate and advertise to children to try to convince them to take advantage of rehousing services.

Pedophiles could set up their own security organisation, that lures children with offers of money and other rewards. Of course, if a child decides they want to go with this pedophile security organisation, they should be entitled to, never mind their complete inability to investigate and understand the true nature of this organisation beyond the attractive surface level.

People have a right to act in defense of other people, so concerned parties could legitimately act against the pedophile organization. At the very least without using any violence at all, the majority of people who would be vehemently opposed to such a group could use blacklisting and public naming and shaming (remember defamation would no longer be a tort) to ensure they could never get a job, get a loan, rent a house ect.

Because of their widespread support (as opposed to the widespread condemnation of pedophile groups), legitimate child protection organizations would be much better equipped to make their services available to children and to warn children about any such pedophile groups if they were to emerge.

At least there are alternatives available to children under anarchism. Under a government monopoly, if the government acts against the children's interests, they are simply forced to accept it. I don't think the government is currently malicious towards children (although that could change, which is an inherent risk when you give government monopoly power), but you don't have to look far to see numerous cases of gross failure and incompetence with state run child protection services.

It's a typical what if [insert hypothetical horror story] happened without the government type objection. The problem is not unique to anarcho-capitalism. Pedophiles can and sometimes do become social workers, or child protection officers, and abuse children using their positions of power within government departments.

Gonna scare some crows with that strawman you're building.

Yeah he's right. I hate the government and even I thought that was ridiculous scarybunny.

 

[1337z4u12]

i got infractions last time i posted here so ill be careful..

but i dont think there is anything particular wrong or brutal about a smack on the bum for a naughty kid by the parent. If it actually harms the kid, like a bruise, then its a problem.
I think this issue has been over-analysed imo.

 

[Planck]

If you think assaulting a child is acceptable then you shouldn't have an issue with raping children. You've obviously paid no attention to the aspect of consent in this scenario.

This isn't a troll. You are effectively on the same level of rapists and you should be treated as such by society.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

If you think assaulting a child is acceptable then you shouldn't have an issue with raping children. You've obviously paid no attention to the aspect of consent in this scenario.

This isn't a troll. You are effectively on the same level of rapists and you should be treated as such by society.

Nab bro, hitting children is "for their own good," but raping them isn't.

and who is to be the judge of what is for someone else's own good? Whoever has the most power with which to enforce their will on others.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[John McCain]

At least there are alternatives available to children under anarchism. Under a government monopoly, if the government acts against the children's interests, they are simply forced to accept it. I don't think the government is currently malicious towards children (although that could change, which is an inherent risk when you give government monopoly power), but you don't have to look far to see numerous cases of gross failure and incompetence with state run child protection services.

It's a typical what if [insert hypothetical horror story] happened without the government type objection. The problem is not unique to anarcho-capitalism. Pedophiles can and sometimes do become social workers, or child protection officers, and abuse children using their positions of power within government departments.

I think blacklists are flawed, I wrote a long rant on it, but I'm sick of listening to the sound of my own voice in this thread, especially when I fundamentally agree with what you're saying even if it may be practically flawed.

I agree with your edit.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I think blacklists are flawed, I wrote a long rant on it, but I'm sick of listening to the sound of my own voice in this thread, especially when I fundamentally agree with what you're saying even if it may be practically flawed.

I agree with your edit.

Well that's swell. Link me to the long rant on blacklists.

 

[John McCain]

If you think assaulting a child is acceptable then you shouldn't have an issue with raping children. You've obviously paid no attention to the aspect of consent in this scenario.

This isn't a troll. You are effectively on the same level of rapists and you should be treated as such by society.

I think this discussion is broken and not going to go anywhere as long as some of the below questions can't be answered, namely why psychological and emotional punishment are justified, or at least how forcibly removing your child who sincerely wishes to play as superman from your rooftop is justified? If I pick up my child who is playing in traffic, happy and wishes to remain there, and place them in my house, which they resent, haven't I committed an act of violence against them akin to abduction and imprisonment?

I think there's something to be said for personhood, and associated rights, only being extended to those capable of rational decision making.

But as a parent it is a responsibility to program your child, at least to an extent. Children are required to surrender rights of autonomy to parents in a number of ways for their own safety, the freedom from forcible programming is arguably one of these.

I don't believe you ever need to use physical violence to do so, but is it really any better to use psychological methods of punishment? How can physical violence be unconscionable, but psychological and emotional manipulation acceptable?

If the methods are equal, you might as well use physical punishment. It is easy.

You put up freedom from coercive violence as an absolute good. Locking someone in their bedroom, forcibly removing them from a dangerous situation they wish to remain in is violent coercion. Is allowing my children the right to choose to take life threatening risks, which they only take based on their lack of perception about the consequences as they lack the capacity for rational decision making, better than violating their freedom from coercion?

What alternative is there, could you raise a child without ever punishing them?

 

[John McCain]

Well that's swell. Link me to the long rant on blacklists.

You asked for it.

The problem I can see is that you may not have access to the complete member lists of these organisations in order for a blacklist to be effective. While you may able to identify one or two people on the front end (who for whatever reason are willing to make substantial sacrifices in the name of political activism), the rest of the organisation can remain entirely secret.

Blacklists are of dubious effectiveness. Not every landlord, employer will examine a blacklist, or consider it important if they are otherwise a decent tenant/employee. Just because the landlord/business owner knows their identity as a blacklisted individual, doesn't mean anyone else ever needs to find out, in which case there is no disincentive to associate with that person.

Some banks may consider making money from blacklisted individuals worthwhile. The majority of individuals in the present world are largely ignorant of ethical consumption, stuff like shells human rights abuses didn't give a huge advantage to the competition.

It's likely the bank could obfuscate its records and fake 'blacklist free' status for its advantage. I expect an independent assessment would find it impossible to tell if the bank is or isn't following its claims.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You asked for it.

The problem I can see is that you may not have access to the complete member lists of these organisations in order for a blacklist to be effective. While you may able to identify one or two people on the front end (who for whatever reason are willing to make substantial sacrifices in the name of political activism), the rest of the organisation can remain entirely secret.

Blacklists are of dubious effectiveness. Not every landlord, employer will examine a blacklist, or consider it important if they are otherwise a decent tenant/employee. Just because the landlord/business owner knows their identity as a blacklisted individual, doesn't mean anyone else ever needs to find out, in which case there is no disincentive to associate with that person.

Some banks may consider making money from blacklisted individuals worthwhile. The majority of individuals in the present world are largely ignorant of ethical consumption, stuff like shells human rights abuses didn't give a huge advantage to the competition.

It's likely the bank could obfuscate its records and fake 'blacklist free' status for its advantage. I expect an independent assessment would find it impossible to tell if the bank is or isn't following its claims.

Good points. However, the incentives in play would be different with pedophiles because they are so universally hated.

Although people tend not to care much about the abuse of the environment, or faceless Africans, people get extremely emotional (even hysterical) about pedophiles living in their community.

Since blacklisted pedophiles would be such a small group, not trading them would only represent a small loss of revenue for any given firm. On the other hand the consequences of public outcry and boycotts if it is exposed that they have traded with blacklisted pedophiles even if the risk of being caught is small) would be extremely damaging.

Of course a blacklist may not be effective in some cases, but neither is the criminal justice system which "may not have access to the complete member lists of these organisations." If you look at the number of people that claim to have been victims of child abuse, or who report child abuse to the police; and then compare these statistics to the number of people actually convicted of child abuse offenses, its pretty clear that the state is failing to protect a lot of children. Obviously criminals will try and hide from any system that attempts to punish them and sometimes they will succeed. Once again, this problem is not unique to anarchism.

 

[will-anal]

But as a parent it is a responsibility to program your child, at least to an extent. Children are required to surrender rights to autonomy to parents in a number of ways for their own safety, the freedom from forcible programming is arguably one of these.

I don't believe you ever need to use physical violence to do so, but is it really any better to use psychological methods of punishment? How can physical violence be unconscionable, but psychological and emotional manipulation acceptable?

If the methods are equal, you might as well use physical punishment. It is easy.

You put up freedom from coercive violence as an absolute good. Locking someone in their bedroom, forcibly removing them from a dangerous situation they wish to remain in is violent coercion. Is allowing my children the right to choose to take life threatening risks, which they only take based on their lack of perception about the consequences as they lack the capacity for rational decision making, better than violating their freedom from coercion?

What alternative is there, could you raise a child without ever punishing them?

If anyone bothered to read what I'd posted, they'd see that psychological punishments are just as "controversial" because things like time out can result in "abandonment issues" by small children.

And other stuff.

 

[will-anal]

If you think assaulting a child is acceptable then you shouldn't have an issue with raping children. You've obviously paid no attention to the aspect of consent in this scenario.

This isn't a troll. You are effectively on the same level of rapists and you should be treated as such by society.

Zero respect for you at all, hey.