Starting on this pagish, the Games thread starts discussing punishment of childrens.

Any actual evidence this works better than dealing with kids without violence?

With the recent anti-smacking law been passed here, it's illegal to even give a slap on the wrist.
This has led to it being quite the debate on talkback shows, with people arguing cases for and against the smacking of chilluns

While there are many alternatives, some children just don't behave and, quite frankly, need a good beating to knock some sense into them.
For example, my cousin was never spanked and and look what happened.
This is not to say it's the only answer, there are generations of families who don't do this and the kids turn out fine.

spanking/belt/wooden spoon/whip/paddle/brass knuckles should only be used after all else has failed

Evidence?

well beating was probably the wrong word and as for evidence....
Me, I was quite the terror as a child and after a few "meetings" with the belt I soon learned not to put catfood in my brothers bed and pick on my little sister.

The mere snapping of the belt was enough to get me to fall back in line

It's not that violence doesn't work. Pain is a strong deterrent, be it from a parent smacking a child, or learning not to touch a stove when it's hot.

But that being said, it's not the only option. Anecdotal evidence of "my cousin never got spanked so he dug up our dead pets" doesn't actually mean anything. There's a whole nature vs. nurture thing I could go into here, but that's not what this debate is about.

Violent punishments themselves are bad, and they're not the only option.

Any evidence that other forms of discipline wouldn't have worked?

That's why I'm asking for usable evidence, like studies. Such as this one:
Spaking leads to child aggression and anxiety.

That's not very many considering the amount of mothers/children are likely in the MILLIONS.

That's not how statistics works.

I understand that, but I'm merely questioning the accuracy of the research due to the low amount of people questioned.

Well, a sample size of 336 is enough for a maximum margin of error of ~5.3% in a numerical study. Is that accurate enough for you?

Edit: The last sentence was not meant to be snarky.

The only way we'd have evidence that something like this wouldn't have worked would be to try it one way, and then go back in time and try it another way. :P

Edit: Forgot the smiley.

I gotta say that's a very vague statistic.

Why?

Because we're given no percentages it just says kids are more aggressive without numbers to suggesting in what size,when it comes spanking and physical force there is barely any description for the measurement of physical force applied (for example, spanking with your hand is much different then spanking with a belt when it comes to pain but very similiar to group) and the amount of physical force applied is important.
Three alot of the info is second hand from the mothers and so cannot be considered entirely reliable, since they might not know enough about their children's life to be considered experts on their aggresssion.

It shows that disciplining with violence causes noticable harm to the child (besides the pain). There's no numbers, yes, but as there are no units for aggression or violence, it's hard to apply numbers. So unless there's real evidence that violent discipline works better than non-violent discipline, there's very good reason not to use it.

We don't even know if the rest is entirely reliable, because statistic test like this can usually find any result the researcher wants (especially with no hard numbers to back up statements). I'm not doubting that use of excessive force against children is bad, I just feel this particular test is horrible evidence of that. Especially since there's a difference between spanking a kid with your hand, and physically beating him and this test doesn't take those differences into account and those are important differences.

Then find a recent study that shows the opposite. People say this whenever statistics are posted here, but they never actually back that up.

So wait my only choices are either to find a statistic that contradicts this one or accept this one as fact?

Well, if you want to discredit the field of Statistics, one would think you would provide something besides your sayso.

What about the fact that this statistic has no evidence except them saying so?

There's a whole list of a citation at the bottom of the article.

I meant in the article itself.

Listen it's one thing to have a backed up statistic test, with clear guidelines on how the information was gathered, where it was gathered and what the results are with numerical backings.
It's another thing to have a test that uses vague guidelines for criteria (what level of violence) and doesn't provide any on site numbers that back up it's statement. Again, we don't even have numbers on hand that prove their statement, since they didn't give any, if they would at least provide the differences with numbers it'd be one thing but without them, the current form of that article is hardly reliable to have decisions made edit: with it as a source of reference

I believe it was Mark Twain who once said. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

My parents spanked me when I behaved badly enough and I turned out to be a pretty normal well adjusted adult I would like to think. As long as you don't make it the sole punishment and only use it in cases where the child is being very bad and you explain the purpose of the punishment then there is no harm in it and you are actually doing your child a favor.

My parents took a different approach for discipline. Misbehave? Go to your room! Oh, what's that? Where did all your toys go? Oh dear. You'll get them back, one by one, if you do these chores.

My parants took a novel approach with me. They never hit me. I was not spanked. But my parents were always forthright with me about the consequences of my actions. They would let me know if something I was going to do would hurt me, or get me in trouble later. They would give me the propper respect to go on and do it if I didn't believe them, then let me see for myself they weren't lying. I think I turned out fine.

My parents gave me a pony every time I misbehaved and I turned out a pretty well-adjusted adult, I would like to think.

My parents sent me to the acid mines every day no matter what my behaviour and I turned out a pretty well-adjusted adult, I would like to think.

Man, this line of thinking sure is easy to use!

I believe it was Grandmaster Jogurt who once said, "If you have insights so deep as to overturn the very way statistical studies are concluded, you should probably bring this up somewhere more important than a webcomic forum.

"Either that or you're just being pedantic and tossing out useless platitudes, in which case, congratulations?"

Since this is your first post, I'll even let you in on a little something.

Your story of how you turned out well, you think? That's a statistic. It's a statistic with a sample size of one and no corroboration, so it's a pretty horrible one, but it's still a statistic.

Alternately, if you like anecdotes, you can think of statistics that way. A statistical study with a count of 300 is three-hundred anecdotes all in one place. That's a lot of stories to back it up! More than you could ever get just from people here talking about themselves! And since they're anonymous and often randomly picked, there's significantly less chance that they're going to be brought up in a way influenced by bias of the subject.

So either anecdotes are even worse statistics or statistics are super incredible anecdotes. Either way!

Alright, then let's try something a little different. This is something that happened to my dad recently.

He was on the bus to work one morning, when these two brats come on and rush past the driver without paying. The driver refuses to head out until they pay and the brats won't leave the bus. Eventually, one of the passengers paid for them and wound up getting things hurled at him through the rest of the journey, and basically made fun of until they got off.

What would you do in that situation? What's the best thing to do here?

I wouldn't have payed for the kids in the first place. If I were the driver, I'd have given then five minutes, then I would have called the cops.


Back on the subject of child rearing, I have to say that being grounded was a much worse punishment than being spanked, because I couldn't do anything but read, and most of the books we owned I had already read. Of course, now I flinch every time it looks like someone is going to hit me, but that could be attributed to the kids I went to school with just as much as how my parents raised me.

Of course what being punished really taught me was how to not get caught. Sure, sometimes the only way to make sure you wouldn't get caught was to not do whatever it was, but more often it just involved covering my tracks.

Edit: It just now occurs to me that I made that sounds a lot worse when it's not in my head.

GJ, your so caught up in defending a single point, a point that's not even on topic, that you totally neglect to address another very valid point. You don't even bring anymore evidence to support your already suspect source. Your simply hellbent on proving that statistics, even faulty ones, to all forms of "gut intuition". Now, that's just plain evasion, as well as dirty debate habits.

The amount of force applied during corporeal punishment is a VERY valid issue. So, do your dignity a favor, and just address the damn point.