Would You Want to Be Raised by a Homosexual Couple?

[jsem]

@the long story from reddit:
It seems like they genuinely loved their children and they did not put them through corporal punishment. That makes them much better than most parents out there, and the kids are blessed to have caring parents - even though their lifestyle is certainly unusual.

Wait...huh?

-J

Yeah. Corporal punishment is wrong and is very harmful to child development.

[hefdaddy42]

@the long story from reddit:
It seems like they genuinely loved their children and they did not put them through corporal punishment. That makes them much better than most parents out there, and the kids are blessed to have caring parents - even though their lifestyle is certainly unusual.

Wait...huh?

-J

Yeah. Corporal punishment is wrong and is very harmful to child development.

Not really.

[jsem]

It is. There's empirical data to back it up.

[yeshaberto]

Corporal punishment with and without love are both life changing.   One for good and one for harm

[hefdaddy42]

It is. There's empirical data to back it up.

OK.

[Vivace]

It is. There's empirical data to back it up.

There's empirical data to back up that corporal punishment actually works too. It's called history. This is an excellent example of a phenomena where people dismiss historical evidence in favor of something "new" as if a contemporary study basically trumps centuries of historical data. There is a legitimate argument for and against corporal punishment.

[kirksnosehair]

It is. There's empirical data to back it up.

There's empirical data to back up that corporal punishment actually works too. It's called history. This is an excellent example of a phenomena where people dismiss historical evidence in favor of something "new" as if a contemporary study basically trumps centuries of historical data. There is a legitimate argument for and against corporal punishment.

Right, because since we knew the earth was flat for centuries, dismissing that fact based on, um, reality, well, that's bad, right? 

[jsem]

So wait, let me get this straight Vivace, your argument is that well - because there is a long history of corporal punishment it means it's good? You know, slavery was around for a LONG LONG time, does that mean slavery was good? (Not that corporal punishment is anywhere NEAR as bad as slavery)

I can instead of saying it's always been that way cite peer reviewed scientific papers that give evidence that corporal punishment has some very negative effects.

[bosk1]

Isn't there a rule that if you have to bring up slavery or nazis to justify your argument, you automatically lose? 

[Super Dude]

Isn't there a rule that if you have to bring up slavery or nazis to justify your argument, you automatically lose? 

If so, it's a wonder the libertarian argument has survived as long as it has.

[Omega]

To kinda shift into higher gears (and avoid making another thread), I'd like to see how you guys would respond to the following questions:

If same-sex marriage was legalized nationally, should polygamous marriages be recognized as well?

What about incestuous marriages?

Why or why not?

[GuineaPig]

Polygamous marriages: there's some legal ramifications here, but I don't know why not.

Incestuous marriage is a problem, though.  Messing with your kids' genetics is not cool.  A definite no for me.

[ehra]

I don't get what the problem with polygamous marriages are, honestly. If that's what they want then all the power to them. Then again, I'm clueless about those potential legal issues GuineaPig mentioned.

Also, pretty much what GuineaPig said for incest. I guess, philosophically, it'd be "ok" if they never had kids on their own. But that's not real practical of a stipulation to enforce.

[skydivingninja]

Isn't there a rule that if you have to bring up slavery or nazis to justify your argument, you automatically lose? 

Are you thinking of Godwin's Law?  "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

My Ethics teacher joked about that rule you mentioned early this semester, but she says it doesn't hold true (the losing part) since mentioning the Nazis really can strengthen your argument. 

[Sigz]

Yeah, there's probably legal/tax complications and problems that can arise from polygamy, but I'm sure there's ways around that. I see no real reason it shouldn't be legal.

Incest has faaar more issues though. From a principle standpoint, I don't see why not. However, genetic problems, constent issues in some cases, and other things make me inclined to say no. Either way, I don't think consensual incestuous relationships are really common enough for it to be a relevant policy question.

[Super Dude]

In fact, polygamy is much more biologically acceptable, because that spreads the genes apart, quite the opposite of incest.

[the Catfishman]

Yeah, there's probably legal/tax complications and problems that can arise from polygamy, but I'm sure there's ways around that. I see no real reason it shouldn't be legal.

Incest has faaar more issues though. From a principle standpoint, I don't see why not. However, genetic problems, constent issues in some cases, and other things make me inclined to say no. Either way, I don't think consensual incestuous relationships are really common enough for it to be a relevant policy question.

I Agree with this.

[Vivace]

It is. There's empirical data to back it up.

There's empirical data to back up that corporal punishment actually works too. It's called history. This is an excellent example of a phenomena where people dismiss historical evidence in favor of something "new" as if a contemporary study basically trumps centuries of historical data. There is a legitimate argument for and against corporal punishment.

Right, because since we knew the earth was flat for centuries, dismissing that fact based on, um, reality, well, that's bad, right? 

Um... you know exactly what I mean, and I don't think it needs to be explained over the example you provided which doesn't cover the idea I expressed.

[Vivace]

So wait, let me get this straight Vivace, your argument is that well - because there is a long history of corporal punishment it means it's good? You know, slavery was around for a LONG LONG time, does that mean slavery was good? (Not that corporal punishment is anywhere NEAR as bad as slavery)

I can instead of saying it's always been that way cite peer reviewed scientific papers that give evidence that corporal punishment has some very negative effects.

History will provide a full, more complete picture of what it is you are trying to study. To ignore history, means you ignoring facts that you should take into account. My argument is not based on the longevity of the event, it's based on the historical arguments that were made in favor of corporal punishment that had it exist up until around 1980. This argument that "it's always been that way" or "we were all messed in the head back in time", are not arguments against a trend nor was that my argument. My argument is that most contemporary studies fail to take into account historical patterns of thought, why people thought that way, and so on in a non-biased approach. But today, contemporary studies shun history like it has leprosy. He want to distance ourselves so much from history that we would rather the world start in 1985 and all the subsequent "bad" history just be categorized as "bad". A lot of these peer reviews fail to answer the questions, "why was corporal punishment socially acceptable in the past?" "How have we changed as a society that now views corporal punishment as unacceptable?" "does this trend follow a similar pattern that happened in the past?" "If corporal punishment is now harmful, in what ways then were we wrong about corporal punishment in the past and how have we resolved those inaccuracies with modern psychology. Furthermore, can we relate modern psychology to, let's say, psychology of 100 years ago? 50 years ago?" Most of the peer reviews I read simply take the phenomena without it's legacy, and argue against it as if it were something that started recently. In the case of slavery, there are far far far far far more arguments that lay to rest why slavery is wrong. In the case of corporal punishment almost all accounts I read tell a more cautionary tale, that we are not to take polemic arguments to an extreme as if the actions of a few people and cases should profain corporal punishment as a whole. These articles usually paint a picture of corporal punishment as something that we mis-understand and negatively paint based only on its negative, dismissing the positives and even dismissing its legacy over time.

I'm surprised I honestly have to explain it this much, but I really hope that helps.

[kirksnosehair]

It is. There's empirical data to back it up.

There's empirical data to back up that corporal punishment actually works too. It's called history. This is an excellent example of a phenomena where people dismiss historical evidence in favor of something "new" as if a contemporary study basically trumps centuries of historical data. There is a legitimate argument for and against corporal punishment.

Right, because since we knew the earth was flat for centuries, dismissing that fact based on, um, reality, well, that's bad, right? 

Um... you know exactly what I mean, and I don't think it needs to be explained over the example you provided which doesn't cover the idea I expressed.

I do know exactly what you mean, which is exactly why I vehemently disagree with it.  It's called progress.  And it's what mankind does.  We progress and move forward.  We discover new ideas, new science, new technology, new medicine, new principles that were previously undiscovered.  And often, they fly directly in the face of centuries of "historical evidence" to the contrary.  Corporal punishment is a perfect example of something that was once widely accepted and regarded as a legitimate means of discipline with no negative consequences, but there is now growing consensus in the psychiatric community that shows that the long-term negative consequences of corporal punishment outweigh the short term result of getting your kid to stop misbehaving.  No one is "dismissing historical evidence." On the contrary, they've reevaluated it, through peer-reviewed scientific study, and found it to have more negative consequences in the long term than previously thought.  Progress.  Welcome to 2012.

[bosk1]

Sorry, but "vocal minority" and "growing consensus" are not the same thing.

[hefdaddy42]

Corporal punishment in and of itself isn't bad.  The problem is with assholes who decide that is the only kind of punishment they will use.

It's one tool, and one that you shouldn't have to use very often. 

[yeshaberto]

It is. There's empirical data to back it up.

There's empirical data to back up that corporal punishment actually works too. It's called history. This is an excellent example of a phenomena where people dismiss historical evidence in favor of something "new" as if a contemporary study basically trumps centuries of historical data. There is a legitimate argument for and against corporal punishment.

Right, because since we knew the earth was flat for centuries, dismissing that fact based on, um, reality, well, that's bad, right? 

Um... you know exactly what I mean, and I don't think it needs to be explained over the example you provided which doesn't cover the idea I expressed.

I do know exactly what you mean, which is exactly why I vehemently disagree with it.  It's called progress.  And it's what mankind does.  We progress and move forward.  We discover new ideas, new science, new technology, new medicine, new principles that were previously undiscovered.  And often, they fly directly in the face of centuries of "historical evidence" to the contrary.  Corporal punishment is a perfect example of something that was once widely accepted and regarded as a legitimate means of discipline with no negative consequences, but there is now growing consensus in the psychiatric community that shows that the long-term negative consequences of corporal punishment outweigh the short term result of getting your kid to stop misbehaving.  No one is "dismissing historical evidence." On the contrary, they've reevaluated it, through peer-reviewed scientific study, and found it to have more negative consequences in the long term than previously thought.  Progress.  Welcome to 2012.

this would explain why children are so much more behaved now that we have curtailed corporal punishment.  our prisons are less full, our academic scores are higher, people treat each other more respectfully, our people work harder and are more productive resulting in a stronger economy, the schools are safer, etc.  progress based on peer-reviewed scientific study is amazing.  the future is brighter than ever

[Omega]

Then there's the other side of the argument which would state that children misbehave, they're spoiled, babied, have no respect for authority, etc.

[AcidLameLTE]

That's what he was getting at.

[kirksnosehair]

Sorry, but "vocal minority" and "growing consensus" are not the same thing.

Hey, don't take my word for it, there are hundreds of studies and scientific papers out there.

Like this one:

The mounting research evidence that physical punishment of children is an ineffective parenting practice comes at
a time of decreasing support for physical punishment within the United States and around the world. The majority
of American adults are opposed to physical punishment by school personnel. An increasing number of Americans
(now at 29 percent) are opposed to physical punishment by parents. At the same time, there is a growing
momentum among other countries to enact legal bans on all forms of physical punishment, bolstered by the fact
that the practice has come to be regarded as a violation of international human rights law.
There is little research evidence that physical punishment improves children's behavior in the long term. In
contrast, there is substantial research evidence that physical punishment puts children at risk for negativeoutcomes, including increased aggression, antisocial behavior, mental health problems, and physical injury. The
clear connections between physical abuse and physical punishment that have been made in empirical research
and in the child abuse statutes of several states suggest that reduction in parents' use of physical punishment
should be included as integral parts of state and federal child abuse prevention efforts.

My wife had a minor in Psychology (she just graduated with her Bachelor's Degree two years ago) and wrote a couple of papers on this very topic.  I actually helped her do some of the research.  We did not seek to castigate the practice of corporal punishment in her paper, we sought the most objective information we could find.  What we found was there is very little OBJECTIVE support in the psychological community for the use of corporal punishment and there is, in fact, growing consensus among qualified professionals that the long-term effects of corporal punishment are extremely detrimental to children as they get older. 


Here's more from the American Academy of Pediatrics (I still have these links on my PC from when she wrote her paper)  These are not "vocal minorities"  These are major academic and scientific research organizations.

 Despite its common acceptance, and even advocacy for its use,¹⁶ spanking is a less effective strategy than time-out or removalof privileges for reducing undesired behavior in children. Althoughspanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior,its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use. The only wayto maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematicallyincrease the intensity with which it is delivered, which canquickly escalate into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is onlyeffective when used in selective infrequent situations.
 The following consequences of spanking lessen its desirabilityas a strategy to eliminate undesired behavior.

• Spanking children<18 months of age increases the chanceof physical injury,and the child is unlikely to understandthe connection betweenthe behavior and the punishment.
• Although spanking may resultin a reaction of shock by the childand cessation of the undesiredbehavior, repeated spanking maycause agitated, aggressive behaviorin the child that may leadto physical altercation between parentand child.
• Spanking models aggressive behavior as a solutionto conflictand has been associated with increased aggressionin preschooland school children.¹⁷
• Spanking and threats ofspanking lead to altered parent–childrelationships, makingdiscipline substantially more difficultwhen physical punishmentis no longer an option, such as withadolescents.
• Spankingis no more effective as a long-term strategy than otherapproaches,¹⁸ and reliance on spanking as a discipline approachmakes otherdiscipline strategies less effective to use.¹⁹ Time-outandpositive reinforcement of other behaviors are more difficultto implement and take longer to become effective when spankinghas previously been a primary method of discipline.
• A patternof spanking may be sustained or increased. Becausespankingmay provide the parent some relief from anger, thelikelihoodthat the parent will spank the child in the futureis increased.²⁰

Parents who spank their children are more likely to use otherunacceptable forms of corporal punishment.²¹ The more childrenare spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the morelikely they are to spank their own children, the more likelythey are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more maritalconflict they experience as adults.²⁰ Spanking has been associatedwith higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse,and increased risk of crime and violence22 when used with olderchildren and adolescents.

I've got more if you want it.  Tons more.  The only strong advocates we seemed to be able to find for the use of Corporal Punishment all tended to be either religious-based organizations.  Most of the science-based and research based entities were fairly critical of its use and there is, in fact, growing consensus among the professionals who do this research that it does more harm than good on average.

[jsem]

this would explain why children are so much more behaved now that we have curtailed corporal punishment.  our prisons are less full, our academic scores are higher, people treat each other more respectfully, our people work harder and are more productive resulting in a stronger economy, the schools are safer, etc.  progress based on peer-reviewed scientific study is amazing.  the future is brighter than ever

Corporal punishment is still really widespread. Just because there's growing consensus among researchers doesn't mean that the regular folks have picked up on it. I saw some statistic that 68% of parents in the US/UK considered it not only good but essential to spank in order to raise children.



And many thanks to kirk for the previous post.

[chknptpie]

Corporal punishment in and of itself isn't bad.  The problem is with assholes who decide that is the only kind of punishment they will use.

It's one tool, and one that you should have to use very often.

shouldn't?

[Omega]

I mean, let's say your 13 year-old kid calls you a "fucking homo bitch".

What do you do then?

Time Out?

Slap in the face?

Take away the xbox?

[bosk1]

My wife had a minor in Psychology (she just graduated with her Bachelor's Degree two years ago) and wrote a couple of papers on this very topic.  I actually helped her do some of the research.  We did not seek to castigate the practice of corporal punishment in her paper, we sought the most objective information we could find.  What we found was there is very little OBJECTIVE support in the psychological community for the use of corporal punishment and there is, in fact, growing consensus among qualified professionals that the long-term effects of corporal punishment are extremely detrimental to children as they get older. 


Here's more from the American Academy of Pediatrics (I still have these links on my PC from when she wrote her paper)  These are not "vocal minorities"  These are major academic and scientific research organizations.
 

   Mike Portnoy?

[Scheavo]

Kirk, I just feel the need to say that what is considered "detrimental" is still going to be considered so due to some morality. Science can't really evade this, and it often does so without acknowledging the morality underpinning it.

[bosk1]

To remove all doubt, I propose that everyone who has posted in this thread let me spank them and then we'll follow up and see how many of you grow up to become aggressive, drug users, and all that other bad stuff.  Starting with Barry, line up so Papa Bosk can get to work. 

[Dark Castle]

To remove all doubt, I propose that everyone who has posted in this thread let me spank them and then we'll follow up and see how many of you grow up to become aggressive, drug users, and all that other bad stuff.  Starting with Barry, line up so Papa Bosk can get to work. 

[kirksnosehair]

My wife had a minor in Psychology (she just graduated with her Bachelor's Degree two years ago) and wrote a couple of papers on this very topic.  I actually helped her do some of the research.  We did not seek to castigate the practice of corporal punishment in her paper, we sought the most objective information we could find.  What we found was there is very little OBJECTIVE support in the psychological community for the use of corporal punishment and there is, in fact, growing consensus among qualified professionals that the long-term effects of corporal punishment are extremely detrimental to children as they get older. 


Here's more from the American Academy of Pediatrics (I still have these links on my PC from when she wrote her paper)  These are not "vocal minorities"  These are major academic and scientific research organizations.
 

   Mike Portnoy?

LOL!!      Epic fail on the use of bolding.

[hefdaddy42]

Corporal punishment in and of itself isn't bad.  The problem is with assholes who decide that is the only kind of punishment they will use.

It's one tool, and one that you should have to use very often.

shouldn't?

Yes, dammit, that should've been "shouldn't".  I will correct the original post.