Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
There is no "within reason" for child abuse.
The vast vast majority of scientific research proves that hitting children only results in negative outcomes, not only in child development, but it's constantly shown to not reduce the undesired behaviour.
If a child can't be reasoned with for why it's actions were wrong, they can't reason why their loving parent strikes them.
If you choose to ignore what's essentially scientific fact and continue hitting children, then the adage "I was hit as a kid and I turned out okay" might be plain wrong.
Furthermore, suggesting that an action is okay because the child "turned out fine" can be used to justify any objectionable behaviour. "I was molested and I turned out okay, therefore molestation is justifiable". If your child did indeed turn out okay, that is despite you choosing to assault them, as ALL research shows you were in the wrong.
I read through it and in all honesty, what I'm gathering, is that it's common for people to go overboard. Either that or my family (father, myself, son) are some kind of insane statistical anomaly. Relationship down the line is fantastic, and son doesn't have outbursts and isn't violent.
Seems the underlying thing is that people use corporal punishment beyond a simple spank swat or hit on the butt. The things they speak about seem to be referring to beating, pulling hair, using sticks, paddles, etc. Even resulting in physical marks or hospitalization. Again, the line between spanking and beating is subjective. ALL research isn't showing I'm in the wrong. It's statistically showing that it has negative impacts overall, but this also, again, complies spanking into sticks, paddles, pulling hair, etc. together.
Ofc a child will be violent when you beat them with a stick or belt. A smack on the butt? Quick and effective. Hot sauce is spicy, therefore all sauces are spicy. Show me a study where they separate the difference.
Imagine defending hitting kids...