Clobber a child? Pope Frank says "Yes"

Cabaal

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Not really the same though is it? Id imagine you wouldnt pick them up and carry them off either. But the point was made that you should treat them the same way you would treat an adult. Your example highlights further that this isnt really what occurs.

If we take HSE guidelines and policy's then people with low mental capacity should never be hit or beaten, the HSE have similar policy's for creche workers when it comes to children.

It seems that the people that resort to hitting are either parents that resort to hitting or beating their children because they can discipline their child via a none violent manner or creche/HSE workers who will be disciplined or sacked in their workplace if they hit or beat a child or adult.

If we look at a creche situations for example its best practice to remove a child or stop the child from getting into a dangerous situation.

If that means picking them up then so be it. So you're argument that picking up a child could be damaging to them is simply laughable,

child wont blindly go around hitting people because they got a slap when they acted poorly. They are more intelligent than that

So a child is not intelligent enough to be disciplined via a non violent manner, but somehow they are intelligent enough to know that they should not hit other people after they themselves were hit?

Thats rather strange logic,

Kids are like sponges, its a case of monkey see, monkey do. So if they are hit or told to stop, then its extremely common for kids to tell other kids to stop or hit them.

Hitting a child and then expecting the child to never hit others (which is only the child copying the adult) is about as logical as telling a child "to never f**ken curse at their f**ken teacher" and then expecting them not to curse even after they see its perfectly acceptable for their parent to do it.

Anyway, to get back on subject. The Holy See is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Children 1989, which advocates for the abolition of corporal punishment of children.

Its seriously f*cked up for them to sign this UN convention and then for the leader of the catholic church to say its ok to beat a child. But I suppose we should see this as business as usual for the Vatican/Pope, after all for decades they'd told people to care for children but then they had rules to ensure the abuse of children by Vatican employee's didn't embarrass the church.

MayoAreMagic

But that isnt the logic I applied. Why do you make a connection between low intelligence and physical punishment?
When I say a child is intelligent enough to understand, I mean they understand the concept of punishment. Whether that be a slap or a scolding. Surely if what us being suggested is true, then a child who is scolded will go around scolding everyone in the same way a child who is slapped is supposed to be violent?

Kiwi in IE

Cookie_Dough wrote: »

Bizarre statement yet many blind Catholics with refer to this as justification or absolution for hitting their child.

The statement could actually cause a legal problem for the above mentioned types of Catholic. The pope is 'infalliable' after all and the 'word of god' trumps the laws of man according to the more fundy religious folk. I would imagine that there are now some who think that they have licence to hit their kids in both private and public, despite the laws of the country they reside in saying the contrary!

Dades

eviltwin wrote: »

According to many a slap in that situation would have been a perfectly reasonable response. That's what the discussion is about. A child misbehaving, how does the parent deal with it?

According to many? Many here or many not involved in this discussion? Argue against arguments that have been made here.

This discussion isn't about those in favour of slapping for any misbehavior - clearly that's flawed parenting.

robindch

Just chatting with Snowflake here and her response was:

Snowflake wrote:

Well, I wonder if he would like it if he was slapped! :mad:

eviltwin

Dades wrote: »

According to many? Many here or many not involved in this discussion? Argue against arguments that have been made here.

This discussion isn't about those in favour of slapping for any misbehavior - clearly that's flawed parenting.

If you have a problem with my post report it. I think its relevant. The pope is telling parents its okay to smack a child, the situation I was in was one where many people would do just that. I'm arguing that its not needed, you can talk to the child and calm the situation down without having to use physical means.

Dades

eviltwin wrote: »

If you have a problem with my post report it. I think its relevant. The pope is telling parents its okay to smack a child, the situation I was in was one where many people would do just that. I'm arguing that its not needed, you can talk to the child and calm the situation down without having to use physical means.

Why would I report your post rather than point out to you that your language (e.g. "first resort") misrepresents most of us on this thread who haven't voiced absolute support for a ban on slapping?

People joining this thread will assume all sorts of untruths about what has been supported here.

All good parents will talk with a child rather than the alternatives. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether there are any circumstances whether the slightest slap is okay, or whether it's fair to say that all slapped children have the potential to grow up traumatised.

Brian Shanahan

Dades wrote: »

I think he's been the opposite, tbh. Far more a lefty than the last one and a lot harder to dislike.

He's not more left-wing, its just that for the first few months when he was being more careful and listening to his PR people, he sounded it, because he was using conciliatory language and the media were allowing him to essentially dictate what was being published (even back then a lot of the substantial stuff he was saying was word for word what Ratzinger and before him Wotyjla (sp?) were saying).

But now that he's got his feet under the table and feeling secure in himself, he's reverting to type, notice his talk, broadcast around the world, in the Philipines about how allowing the gays to marry was an abomination, his coming out almost in favour of ISIS after the Charlie Hebdo killings and now this retrograde step in child rearing (notice the deep conservatism of a man who as far as we know has no children and has never reared a one expecting the world to take his direction and agree with a view which has shown to be scientifically wrong for about fifty years).

I wouldn't be too suprised if he does like Ratzinger did on science and try to row the church back on its support for evolution.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think you really have to take the 'ignore and move on' approach with this.

The man has never raised a kid. What would he know.

The problem with taking that approach Tombo, is that he is not just some random guy (who does some great videos on youtube, incidentally) but the leader of supposedly the world's largest religion of whom the world's media slavishly take notice of even his silliest pronouncements, and many ordinary people, not having the proper tools to judge his pronouncements take his word over that of good science.

Brian Shanahan

Dades wrote: »

Is grabbing a child roughly in such a scenario akin to a slap that hurts no more than being thrown playfully onto a couch? I just think it's too black and white for people say never ever raise a finger to a child. I don't need to do it at home - my kids are good. But some kids are monsters, lets face it.

No. You are trying to fashion an equivalence between two radically different situations. You've grabbed the child roughly in the heat of the moment, because there is a significant danger to them (from the moving car), and because you did it without thinking your subconscious has added an extra bit of force to your action "just to be sure". You've grabbed them roughly because you are afraid that if you didn't you wouldn't have caught them and they'd have died, not to use physical pain as a teaching tool to stop them from doing it again.

You cannot say the same about slapping the child (especially after the event) because that is a conscious decision made to discipline the child to prevent them from engagaing in future in a course of action you've seen them do in the recent past. The intent to hurt them (no matter how mildly) is there in the totality of the act.

Brian Shanahan

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

One thing I have just realised, maybe it is wrong, but Id be interested to hear opinions.

Atheists believe in science, and science states that we are mammals, the same as any other animal on the earth. Well other animals physically discipline their young. So why are we different in this particular scenario?

For the record, Im not really in either camp, as I don't know which is right.

Also, for people who say you shouldn't discipline a child with a smack (not 'clobber' in all fairness), what do you do when a child is acting like a complete brat and your reasoning simply does not work? At that point where they know you are only going to tell them to stop so continue on anyway. how do you resolve it?

Mayo, first of all, atheists don't believe in science, there is nothing to believe in science, because it is a system developed to examine and interpret observed and observable phenomena in order that they can be explained in terms understandable to the human mind and systematically put together as something resembling a whole.

Secondly, what other animals discipline their children. Please post any evidence for this assertion, because I've never even heard of such a thing being said before.

Thirdly, if you don't know what is right or wrong, why are you making such a hard case in favour of smacking?

And fourthly, if you cannot discipline your child without smacking them, no matter if "they're acting such a brat" as you inelegantly phrase it, I honestly can see how you can describe yourself as a proper parent. If the child is that far gone, or that prone to bad behaviour, you've not brought them up right from the word go.

volchitsa

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Mayo, first of all, atheists don't believe in science, there is nothing to believe in science, because it is a system developed to examine and interpret observed and observable phenomena in order that they can be explained in terms understandable to the human mind and systematically put together as something resembling a whole.

Secondly, what other animals discipline their children. Please post any evidence for this assertion, because I've never even heard of such a thing being said before.

Thirdly, if you don't know what is right or wrong, why are you making such a hard case in favour of smacking?

And fourthly, if you cannot discipline your child without smacking them, no matter if "they're acting such a brat" as you inelegantly phrase it, I honestly can see how you can describe yourself as a proper parent. If the child is that far gone, or that prone to bad behaviour, you've not brought them up right from the word go.

First, I agree with almost all of this post, but there is one point that is inaccurate - animals (mammals anyway) do "discipline" their offspring with a quick paw-strike or even a small bite. I've seen mother cats and dogs do it. But IME they do it purely from irritation, and not as a teaching technique. It's very much "leave me alone, I've had enough". Nothing more.

So I don't think it makes any more sense to extrapolate from that to humans, other than to agree that it's an intuitive "anger" reaction, possibly born of the exhaustion of being a single parent!

Because it's purely a female thing: I've never seen males take that level of interest in their young - though I believe they occasionally carry out an actual attack, which may lead to death. Does that mean women should be allowed to hit but men should be imprisoned for hitting their children?

Anyway - would anyone sane model their families on animal "parenting" generally?
The acquisition of language changes all of that for us. And it would be ridiculous to expect animals to read with their offspring. How could they? We can.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Just chatting with Snowflake here and her response was:

Robin's Snowflake wrote:

Well, I wonder if he would like it if he was slapped!

Maybe we should conduct an experiment.

P.S. The fact that the forum doesn't allow nested quoting makes me a very sad panda indeed.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

Anyway - would anyone sane model their families on animal "parenting" generally?

Oddly enough, that's the "Natural Law" argument of religious dogma - that rules are "written in nature" and that humans should "follow nature".

It's not an argument that works very well if one follows it to, say, square two.

jank

robindch wrote: »

Oddly enough, that's the "Natural Law" argument of religious dogma - that rules are "written in nature" and that humans should "follow nature".

It's not an argument that works very well if one follows it to, say, square two.

Well natural law has been used by many various groups. A prime example would be the Third Reich and their bastardised version of eugenics which came from Darwinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Turtwig

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe we should conduct an experiment.

P.S. The fact that the forum doesn't allow nested quoting makes me a very sad panda indeed.

?
It does.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe we should conduct an experiment.

P.S. The fact that the forum doesn't allow nested quoting makes me a very sad panda indeed.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe we should conduct an experiment.

P.S. The fact that the forum doesn't allow nested quoting makes me a very sad panda indeed.

Maybe we should conduct an experiment.

P.S. The fact that the forum doesn't allow nested quoting makes me a very sad panda indeed.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe we should conduct an experiment.

P.S. The fact that the forum doesn't allow nested quoting makes me a very sad panda indeed.

Maybe we should conduct an experiment.

P.S. The fact that the forum doesn't allow nested quoting makes me a very sad panda indeed.

Groundhog post

robindch

jank wrote: »

Well natural law has been used by many various groups. A prime example would be the Third Reich and their bastardised version of eugenics which came from Darwinism.

It's not a "bastardised version of eugenics". Instead, it'd be closer to "murder of humans justified using an 'ought' (fallaciously) derived from a 'is' (which happened to be false anyway)".

See David Hume's "Is–ought problem":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Quite apart from the Is-Ought fallacy, Stalin, Hitler and the rest of the usual had views which were broadly Lamarckian, not Darwinian.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

?
It does.


Groundhog post

How did you do that?!? You must be magic. Thus you are god!


All hail Turtwig our new lord and master!

MayoAreMagic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Mayo, first of all, atheists don't believe in science, there is nothing to believe in science, because it is a system developed to examine and interpret observed and observable phenomena in order that they can be explained in terms understandable to the human mind and systematically put together as something resembling a whole.

Maybe believe was the wrong word. But Im sure you understand what I meant.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Secondly, what other animals discipline their children. Please post any evidence for this assertion, because I've never even heard of such a thing being said before.

Dogs would be one. When a pup is suckling and the mother wishes it to stop she might give a growl, if the pup does not listen and continues to ignore warnings the mother reacts with a bite. Now it is a pinch of course, so to not hurt the pup to much, but it is physical punishment. Now, can you explain why that is different for people?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Thirdly, if you don't know what is right or wrong, why are you making such a hard case in favour of smacking?

Well because I think people are being unfairly dismissive. I mean you say Im 'not a proper parent' in the next paragraph for example (Im not a parent at all btw). Who are you to make that claim about someone simply because thy use a different method of discipline than you do? It is biased from the outset. A child who is disciplined in such a way could be far superior to one that isn't. It is being unfairly represented as some low-intelligence act for those who aren't enlightened. But the evidence of those who have been smacked as children does not back this up.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And fourthly, if you cannot discipline your child without smacking them, no matter if "they're acting such a brat" as you inelegantly phrase it, I honestly can see how you can describe yourself as a proper parent. If the child is that far gone, or that prone to bad behaviour, you've not brought them up right from the word go.

Well that is an assumption. But maybe the behaviour is stemming from a lack of meaningful punishment? People have given such examples on this thread. Also, you are criticising the parent here, but that wasn't the question. I asked what do you do.

lazygal

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Dogs would be one. When a pup is suckling and the mother wishes it to stop she might give a growl, if the pup does not listen and continues to ignore warnings the mother reacts with a bite. Now it is a pinch of course, so to not hurt the pup to much, but it is physical punishment. Now, can you explain why that is different for people?

How would you feel if I told you my 17 month old bit me when I was breastfeeding him over the weekend so I nipped him as a deterrent?
Or maybe I should tell you what really happened. He's teething so his poor mouth is in agony so I pulled him off the breast, told him I knew his teeth were sore but he was not allowed to bite me, and the feed resumed as normal.
It is different for people because we are able to explain our actions to our children, rather than biting them because it might work for a different species.

MayoAreMagic

lazygal wrote: »

How would you feel if I told you my 17 month old bit me when I was breastfeeding him over the weekend so I nipped him as a deterrent?
Or maybe I should tell you what really happened. He's teething so his poor mouth is in agony so I pulled him off the breast, told him I knew his teeth were sore but he was not allowed to bite me, and the feed resumed as normal.
It is different for people because we are able to explain our actions to our children, rather than biting them because it might work for a different species.

Well Id be concerned because mimicking the exact behaviour of a dog isn't normal for humans. It is an example of physical reprimand being natural in a species, Im not saying you go out and start rolling over and rounding up livestock.

silverharp

I think comparing to animals isnt helpful , Ive never seen heard of a parent slapping a toddler or infant

MayoAreMagic

silverharp wrote: »

I think comparing to animals isnt helpful , Ive never seen heard of a parent slapping a toddler or infant

Isn't helpful to what?
It is simply an example where natural instincts of a species involves physical discipline. Surely that is something worth considering in this discussion?

jivedude

I think that is a perfect example!

silverharp

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Isn't helpful to what?
It is simply an example where natural instincts of a species involves physical discipline. Surely that is something worth considering in this discussion?

animals do lots of things from hugging their offspring to eating them. It wouldnt make sense to take parenting cues from animals despite occasional overlap.

lazygal

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well Id be concerned because mimicking the exact behaviour of a dog isn't normal for humans. It is an example of physical reprimand being natural in a species, Im not saying you go out and start rolling over and rounding up livestock.

It might be 'natural' for one species to apply a physical reprimand, but that does not mean humans should apply a physical reprimand. It used to be considered natural that a married woman couldn't be raped by her husband, but thankfully times have changed and we recognized that the law should be amended accordingly.
Natural doesn't always mean good.

volchitsa

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Isn't helpful to what?
It is simply an example where natural instincts of a species involves physical discipline. Surely that is something worth considering in this discussion?

There's a good bit of goalpost moving going on here!

You actually began by suggesting that atheists should believe in physical discipline because they say that humans are just animals. Now that you're no longer saying that, maybe you need to clear up what exactly you are saying, rather than constantly push those goalposts inch by inch till they're in a completely different part of the pitch!

Humans are not identical to mammals, largely because of our capacity for self awareness and also our level of complex speech. We can explain to our offspring what we want them to do, and they can understand. Dogs can't.

So yes, we do also socialize our young, but no, we don't need to do it by biting them. Luckily.

MayoAreMagic

volchitsa wrote: »

There's a good bit of goalpost moving going on here!

You actually began by suggesting that atheists should believe in physical discipline because they say that humans are just animals. Now that you're no longer saying that, maybe you need to clear up what exactly you are saying, rather than constantly push those goalposts inch by inch till they're in a completely different part of the pitch!

Indeed there is. Starting in the above, because I never once stated that atheists should believe in physical discipline. My issue is with this vilification of a person who smacks their child from the outset regardless of circumstance, and the clear double standards at play when someone suggests physically picking the child up and carrying them off as a substitute. How can striking them be detrimental, but that isn't? To be carried off against your will?!

volchitsa wrote: »

Humans are not identical to mammals, largely because of our capacity for self awareness and also our level of complex speech. We can explain to our offspring what we want them to do, and they can understand. Dogs can't.

So yes, we do also socialize our young, but no, we don't need to do it by biting them. Luckily.

But at what point is that self awareness over-riding our natural instincts, and how much has it been fashioned by how we want to be viewed as opposed to what comes naturally? Im asking if it in fact isn't natural, or if it is and we just have conditioned ourselves to think it doesn't...

In truth, I have seen parents who 'don't strike their child' become very angry with their children, to the point of genuinely frightening them, not to mention completely embarrassing them. This to me, is far more detrimental than a calm parent giving their child a smack on the backside. But the guy going red in the face screaming at the child is the good parent... The guy who picks the clearly uncomfortable child up and carries him off is the good parent (surely that is a form of physical punishment too?) That just doesn't make sense to me.

silverharp

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Indeed there is. Starting in the above, because I never once stated that atheists should believe in physical discipline. My issue is with this vilification of a person who smacks their child from the outset regardless of circumstance, and the clear double standards at play when someone suggests physically picking the child up and carrying them off as a substitute. How can striking them be detrimental, but that isn't? To be carried off against your will?!




But at what point is that self awareness over-riding our natural instincts, and how much has it been fashioned by how we want to be viewed as opposed to what comes naturally? Im asking if it in fact isn't natural, or if it is and we just have conditioned ourselves to think it does.

In a general way I'd say that kids have certain inbuilt ways of behaving subject to individual personality and have certain limitations obviously as their brains aren't fully developed. Parenting on the other hand is more rational but with a cultural bias and it also depends on the education and personality of the individual parent. The French by all accounts seem to to be top seem the class when it comes to raising kids. Americans seem to be more fad driven and have the term helicopter parents and possibly are raising more stressed out kids than the French? So assuming French kids are the same as american ones there is still some cultural learning to be done
As someone who has had to "kidnap" my kids from time to time when they were younger I would rate it similar to a slap. Essentially I was exercising my right to end negotiations

volchitsa

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Indeed there is. Starting in the above, because I never once stated that atheists should believe in physical discipline.

Here's what you said. If you didn't mean atheists, why did you say atheists?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

One thing I have just realised, maybe it is wrong, but Id be interested to hear opinions.

Atheists believe in science, and science states that we are mammals, the same as any other animal on the earth. Well other animals physically discipline their young. So why are we different in this particular scenario?

For the record, Im not really in either camp, as I don't know which is right.

Maybe you meant something completely different, but I can't see what it was.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But at what point is that self awareness over-riding our natural instincts, and how much has it been fashioned by how we want to be viewed as opposed to what comes naturally? Im asking if it in fact isn't natural, or if it is and we just have conditioned ourselves to think it doesn't...

I don't understand what you're saying here - how can we possibly imagine that the capacity for language and abstract thought hasn't fashioned our reactions? It would be worrying if it hadn't!

More to the point, perhaps you could clarify how this "deeper instinct" you seem to suggest that we are suppressing (to our detriment??) could or should be expressed in terms of child rearing in today's society?

Because while I agree that we have a mammalian brain, with various levels of instinctual response, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to give free rein to it - wouldn't that mean that the rape of any fertile woman that took a man's fancy would just be, well, tough luck for her and possibly for her less powerful "mate"?

And applied to child rearing - well, I don't know really: other males killing unwanted offspring? Do we really want to go down that road? Isn't socialization exactly that - preparation of immature young for the society they are going to live in? And if that's a herd of elephants, then one set of social skills is needed, but that may not be great for bonobo monkeys, or for humans...

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In truth, I have seen parents who 'don't strike their child' become very angry with their children, to the point of genuinely frightening them, not to mention completely embarrassing them. This to me, is far more detrimental than a calm parent giving their child a smack on the backside. But the guy going red in the face screaming at the child is the good parent... The guy who picks the clearly uncomfortable child up and carries him off is the good parent (surely that is a form of physical punishment too?) That just doesn't make sense to me.

Do you mean that parents who hit their children don't get angry at them? I don't think that is true. It's just that they don't have to control their temper, because they can lash out, so then they feel better.

Or if you mean that even parents who don't hit their children can still show poor parenting skills, well, yes, I'm sure that's true. But I don't see that they would be better parents if they hit them as well. And I have actually hit my children. But then I learnt how to discipline them without hitting. And it's actually a lot better, it just takes more thought and effort from the parents.

But I suspect we aren't going to agree on that.

Brian Shanahan

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Maybe believe was the wrong word. But Im sure you understand what I meant.

Yes you were trying to put atheism and science on the same low level as religion and I called you out on it.