mjpb, I'm taking the view that there is enough evidence around for me to take note both that smacking has risks and that it's not more effective than other forms of discipline. The sexual violence links are worthy of consideration, other research has found fallout in other areas.

If there was clear evidence that smacking was more effective than other forms of discipline then I'd take a different view.

As for thousands of years of history, those thousands of years have been marked by violence (not necessarily caused by smacking). Just because stuff was done a certain way in the past does not mean that we have to continue to do it the same way.

You said "FIRMNESS..PREDICTABILITY..CONSISTENCY..CREATIVITY.. with love or patience and empathy seems like a good list. I'd like to add that people need to be aware of the benefits of encouraging positive behaviours. It can be a very powerful tool. Sadly too often only negative behaviours get attention." is a much safer and healthier way to deal with child discipline.

Personally I think that sums the real issue up.

R0bert

What an excellent post, RObert I couldn't agree more.

I'm sure that your son feels listened to, loved and accepted and I hope he will grow up to become a balanced and fair person, like yourself.

Robert,

The list wasn't intended to exclude smacking. From memory most of it came from Boazy while advocating smacking.

"Just because stuff was done a certain way in the past does not mean that we have to continue to do it the same way."

Literally that is definitely correct, but the corollary so often overlooked is: Just because stuff was done a certain way in the past does not mean that it was not done that way for a reason.

There have been too many examples of where people have arrogantly tossed out traditions and practices on the assumption that countless minds in the past could not have possibly been clever enough to understand the situation. At some stage we need to start learning from our mistakes and not assume we always no better than our predecessors in a variety of cultures. I think our culture tends to overlook the countless brilliant minds in the past and in other cultures.

I am rather partial to the 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread' saying. Would you entertain the possibility that sometimes it is best to fully understand something before you make a radical change?

"that countless minds in the past could not have possibly been clever enough to understand the situation"

mjpb, thats a strawman argument. I've not said anything about the cleverness of people in the past.

Its not about cleverness, it's about the information available to them. Significant research has been put into the topic which had not been done previously.

Do you smoke? If not why not?

People in the past used to consider it safe, even some quite brilliant people. Would you consider using a paint with significant levels of lead in your home? Asbestos in your wall claddings?

If you needed resuscitation would you prefer to have someone use the latest recommended method derived from the most up to date research or use the 1767 Dutch method http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1193/868/

"In 1767, the Dutch Humane Society published guidelines for resuscitation of victims of drowning, stating: ‘keep the victim warm, give mouth-to-mouth ventilation, and perform insufflation of smoke of burning tobacco into the rectum’.1"

Fools rush in but they also delay well past the point where they should have acted.

The evidence is sufficent to convince me that smacking has unnecessary risks and that smacking has no proven benefits that cannot be achieved by other means.

R0bert

""that countless minds in the past could not have possibly been clever enough to understand the situation"

mjpb, thats a strawman argument. I've not said anything about the cleverness of people in the past."

That accusation was directed toward the people responsible for the examples that I thought should concern you. Examples that you obviously were to make the opposite point to your preemptive counter examples. Your examples were to show genuine progress in line with your view that it has been made on this issue. My examples were to show that sometimes progress is assumed when it hasn't really happened or it has happened but gets detrimentally overgeneralised.

Speaking of your examples...is the Dutch Humane Society advice so bad even if it sounds bizarre. Isn't nicotine a stimulant so in the unlikely event the unusual administration had an effect it shouldn't be bad (its not like that would create an addiction) and wouldn't keeping a drowning victim warm and performing mouth to mouth resuscitation be particularly desirable?

"The evidence is sufficent to convince me that smacking has unnecessary risks and that smacking has no proven benefits that cannot be achieved by other means."

So contrary to your earlier comment forming or maintaining your decision is based on other information that you consider viable evidence? In other words I read that damn excuse for a study for no reason. I ought to start quoting scriptures for revenge...

We could get into some debate about the value of psychology studies on the topic, the merits of individual studies, a discussion of the value of experience, and perhaps a pissing contest with examples. I'm open to avoiding it. Your call.

The bottom line is your bottom line without me conceding any agreement with your perception. Mine is the opposite. Mainly the difference in perception probably hinges on what we consider reliable.

mjpb' "Mainly the difference in perception probably hinges on what we consider reliable." - agreed.

"In other words I read that damn excuse for a study for no reason. I ought to start quoting scriptures for revenge..." - you have lost me on that. The research showed a strong correlation between smacking and sexual violence and sexual coersion in later life but acknowledged that there was a possibility that it was not causal.

My reading of the paper left with me with the view that Straus considers smacking to be causal but acknowledged the possibility that there may be other explainations. Other material I've seen has pointed to significant research showing strong correlations between smacking and other negative behavioural outcomes. Maybe just a lot of coincidences and maybe it's just coincidence that smokers get lung cancer at far higher rates than non smokers.

I'll leave smacking and smoking as things I don't need to do though thanks.

"I ought to start quoting scriptures for revenge..." - I can do that too but your fundy friends don't seem to like it much. Did you see how they seemed to loose interest in how women dress after I provided some scriptures showing what Jesus said they should do. I've noticed a trend for fundies to be a lot more interested in scriptures that leave the pain with someone else than themselves - thumping kids, attacking gays etc are all important but following a clear instruction from Jesus about what they need to do is not.

R0bert