Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Robban]

Discipline in Love is a necessary requirement of God:
Proverbs 13:24 (KJV)
[24] He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
This was the wisest man who ever lived with the exception of Jesus of course...
I think I will go with his advice View attachment 341919but thanks for your effort!

"............thanks for your effort."
Could it not be that you need to put in effort and not read like someone reading headlines at a news srand?

 

[enoob57]

"............thanks for your effort."
Could it not be that you need to put in effort and not read like someone reading headlines at a news srand?

I believe it is a God given right to the individual how one reads... you seem to think you have control of this ... good luck with that!

 

[Robban]

I believe it is a God given right to the individual how one reads... you seem to think you have control of this ... good luck with that!

Control?

 

[Robban]

I believe it is a God given right to the individual how one reads... you seem to think you have control of this ... good luck with that!

Food for thought?

"Educate the child in accordance with his way, so that also when he grows old he will not depart from it."


Also from Proverbs (22:6)

 

[stevevw]

Then let me rephrase that. We know which attitudes drive corporal punishment which would meet the legal reporting threshold. Acceptance and normalisation of violence, belief in the need for parenting control. This is very well established.

See even this is vague when it comes to the role belief plays. CP is legal so belief in CP is not wrong in itself. So logically most people who believe in CP don't necessarily believe in child abuse or obviously harming a child. They don't state "I believe that giving my child a black eye, cut or cigarette burn is good parenting". So perhaps a large % of those who end up before the courts for abuse never intended to harm their kid in line with the injuries they may end up with.

Evenso I was speaking more about attitudes towards abuse and violence as a society and not just when it comes to CP. If on the one hand we say child abuse and violence is wrong but then promote physical violence in the media like with how the good guy punches and kills the bad guy or how society, well the progressives anyway think its ok for people to be violent against their percieved oppressors. Then its sending a mixed message.

This is not the point. We know that when people have a cluster of particular beliefs - acceptance and normalisation of violence, parental control, and so on - then they are willing to be physically abusive of their children when they see it as necessary. Whether or not those beliefs are "true" is not the issue; when they are present, abuse (by which I mean physical punishment which would meet the legal reporting threshold) happens.

My point was that we cannot do peoples thinking and say that because people have overstepped the mark in diciplining their child that they must have secretly had some belief that abuse was ok. That is not justified because of the nature of belief.

I don't think many parents and especially those suffering from the risk factors know what they believe. They are just trying to survive and cope and often its because they cannot cope that they lash out. If the risk factors were not there then the abuse would not happen regardless of belief.

According to your logic we must assume that anyone that did something wrong really believed it was ok to do that wrong which I don't think is the case. Its forcing everyone into boxes of belief and non belief when belief is so subjective that we cannot pin it down to specific people in specific situations. People say they believe in something but they really don't and people say they don't believe when they really do and then some have not made their minds up or even thought about it.

You don't need to believe in God to recognise the damage of abuse.

Some would say that its belief in God that causes abuse.

 

[enoob57]

Food for thought?

"Educate the child in accordance with his way, so that also when he grows old he will not depart from it."


Also from Proverbs (22:6)

This is translation I do not recognize ... The Bible says this
Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)
[6] Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6 (ESV)
[6] Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6 (NASB)
[6] Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

what you have used is not a translation but a perversion of...

 

[Robban]

This is translation I do not recognize ... The Bible says this
Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)
[6] Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6 (ESV)
[6] Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6 (NASB)
[6] Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

what you have used is not a translation but a perversion of...

Well, you being the author of proverbs, you should know, would reckon.

 

[Paidiske]

If the risk factors were not there then the abuse would not happen regardless of belief.

I responded to a lot of other things in your post, but then decided there was one point which was so much more important than all the rest, I would make that point alone so that it could stand more clearly.

This claim is false, and it is very, very dangerous, because it means that abuse in other settings gets overlooked and ignored.

Those abused children in households without "risk factors" deserve better from us.

 

[enoob57]

Well, you being the author of proverbs, you should know, would reckon.

This left me at some sort of impasse ... I gave three different translation of the verse (nothing of mine personally) which did not support what ever you were using... and this was your reply...

 

[stevevw]

I responded to a lot of other things in your post, but then decided there was one point which was so much more important than all the rest, I would make that point alone so that it could stand more clearly.

This claim is false, and it is very, very dangerous, because it means that abuse in other settings gets overlooked and ignored.

Those abused children in households without "risk factors" deserve better from us.

But its also dangerous to deny that the risk factors are found in the majority of abuse cases (80 to 90%).

It also doesn't make sense in the real world. If a household has no risk factors it suggests they have protective factors against abuse where they are stable, reasonable in their thinking, are not influenced by issues that cause them to behave in ways that would put their family at risk and in fact have protection against risk. If you say they still do act in ways that risk their family then they have risk factors.

Saying there are no risk factors when it comes to child abuse is like saying there are no risk factors for substance abuse, crime, terrorism, ect. That people just wake up one day without any reason and start commiting crime, terrorising people or getting addicted to drugs. It doesn't happen like that. There is always an underlying reason for people to act in contradiction to life, to what is reagrded as best for human wellbeing.

Even your own logic that belief and attitudes cause abuse is itself a risk factor that as you say causes people to abuse. Even you said that it would make those with other risk factors as opposed to those with no risk factors more likely to abuse.

But I am also wondering why you are once again avoiding the facts, the truth by not responding to the rest of the post. I just explained how you side stepped my original posts which contained facts from the experts which contradict your position and now your avoiding them again. Which to me implies you cannot answer them and therefore have to ignore them.

 

[Paidiske]

But I am also wondering why you are once again avoiding the facts, the truth by not responding to the rest of the post.

Because that single point was too important to let it get lost in the wash of obfuscation. Your claim was utterly false.

Abuse happens in households rich and poor, traditional and non-traditional in their structure, and across every other social variable there is. It happens because people who hold beliefs justifying their abuse, choose to act in abusive ways.

Every other point under discussion pales in importance to this one. We have to be able to recognise the reality of abuse that is occurring.

 

[Robban]

This left me at some sort of impasse ... I gave three different translation of the verse (nothing of mine personally) which did not support what ever you were using... and this was your reply...

Educate or train?

Humans are educated,
animals are trained.

But you call it a perversion.


What is there to say?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Educate or train?

Humans are educated,
animals are trained.

But you call it a perversion.


What is there to say?

The underlying message is that educate comes from the Latin 'to draw out' or lead out - not to shove in.

 

[Robban]

The underlying message is that educate comes from the Latin 'to draw out' or lead out - not to shove in.

What does that have to do with price of fish?

No one is talking about shoving in, education broadens one's horizon.

 

[Robban]

What does that have to do with price of fish?

No one is talking about shoving in, education broadens one's horizon.

Shoving in would be what is called brainwashing, would reckon.

 

[stevevw]

Because that single point was too important to let it get lost in the wash of obfuscation. Your claim was utterly false.

Abuse happens in households rich and poor, traditional and non-traditional in their structure, and across every other social variable there is. It happens because people who hold beliefs justifying their abuse, choose to act in abusive ways.

Every other point under discussion pales in importance to this one. We have to be able to recognise the reality of abuse that is occurring.

But the facts you are ignoring are the very facts that dispute your claims so they are relevant. You claim attitudes and belief are the only cause of abuse and that 'my claim' which is also the claim of organisations like Bernardos and the CDC is as you said "utterly false" meaning theres not a shred of evdience for them. Thats a big claim that need big evidence. Therefore any link that claims poverty or other factors as the cause should not exist or be wrong according to you.

Yet the links I posted clearly say that poverty is a cause. In fact they say there are a number of causual factors because there is no single cause of abuse. They don't say its only caused by belief but rather belief is just one of the factors. That directly refutes your claim. You need to explain how these organisations are wrong, have misunderstood the causes or are just plain out lying.

Here they are again. I will make it simple and only post two organisations that say that there are several causes of abuse.
Bernardos states when it comes to causes of child abuse
the impact of the extent and nature of poverty as a direct causal factor of child abuse and neglect.

Bernardos is saying povery is 'direct' causal factor. So this would refute your claim that Bernardos is making utterly false claims and refute your claim that

The Benevolent Society
There can be many factors causing child abuse and neglect. Poverty is only one factor, but perhaps the most pervasive. i
So they say there are many factors causing child abuse, not one, not belief alone and in fact poverty is regarded as the most pervasive one. How can that be if poverty is not a causal factor but rather belief is.

The APA
Poverty is a reliable predictor of child abuse and neglect.
How can poverty by a reliable predictor of child abuse if its not a significant contributing causal factor.

I don't think attitudes or belief are that reliable as people can claim to believe something but not really believe it. They can not believe something but really believe it. Its too subjective to be a relaible measure.

What your doing is creating a strawman, either/or or red herring fallacy maybe all by trying to focus on each risk factor individually rather than the combination of risk factors. So your logic is abuse can happen in a TF therefore the risk is no different to a broken family. Or abuse can happen in a poor family so poverty is not a cause.

But the idea of risk factors is about the sclae of risk that builds towards the likelyhood or abuse rather than from one factor. So a broken family with mental illness and stress is of higher risk than a TF without those risks. A poor family with stress and past abuse has higher risk than a poor family without those additional factors. Your trying to deny the scale of risk and replace it with a black and white single cause which is over simplistic and doesn't reflect reality.

But I want you to explain how Bernardos can claim poverty is a direct cause when you say this is utterly false.

 

[Paidiske]

You claim attitudes and belief are the only cause of abuse and that 'my claim' which is also the claim of organisations like Bernardos and the CDC is as you said "utterly false"

Barnados and the CDC did not say "If the risk factors were not there then the abuse would not happen regardless of belief."

That is false. It is completely incorrect. It is a dangerous claim because it sets us up to overlook, fail to recognise, and fail to respond to many instances of abuse. And it undermines any preventative work, because it fails to recognise where the causes of abuse actually lie.

This is the misconception we need to get past before we can even have any constructive conversation about abuse.

Yet the links I posted clearly say that poverty is a cause.

Steve, in an earlier post you acknowledged that it wasn't a cause, simply a correlation. Now you go back on that. You aren't even presenting a consistent position in this thread.

 

[stevevw]

Barnados and the CDC did not say "If the risk factors were not there then the abuse would not happen regardless of belief."

That is false. It is completely incorrect. It is a dangerous claim because it sets us up to overlook, fail to recognise, and fail to respond to many instances of abuse. And it undermines any preventative work, because it fails to recognise where the causes of abuse actually lie.

This is the misconception we need to get past before we can even have any constructive conversation about abuse.

Your creating another fallacy. I clearly mentioned what I was referring to here which you seemed to have ignored. I said I was talking about causes and referring to "You claim attitudes and belief are the only cause of abuse". That is why I linked those statements from those organisations ie
"the impact of the extent and nature of poverty as a direct causal factor of child abuse and neglect" and "There can be many factors causing child abuse and neglect. Poverty is only one factor, but perhaps the most pervasive".

Which you have now ignored twice now. You need to explain how These organisations say that there are many factors causing abuse including poverty, mental illness, past abuse and stress.

Steve, in an earlier post you acknowledged that it wasn't a cause, simply a correlation. Now you go back on that. You aren't even presenting a consistent position in this thread.

Yes and now after doing more investigation it seems poverty is an actual cause. Sometimes correlations can be causes as well you know.

Nevertheless cause or correlation the point is you said belief and attitudes is the only cause of abuse and violence and this is not in line with the evidence whether that be that all factors are causes or correlations that lead to child abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

Your creating another fallacy.

What fallacy?

Most of your post neither makes much sense, nor addresses my point.

 

[stevevw]

What fallacy?

Most of your post neither makes much sense, nor addresses my point.

Ok so we seem to perhaps have a commication problem. So maybe if I summarize my position and why I think your position is not supported by the data and research.

My position is child abuse is caused by a number of factors including poverty, psychological disorders including emotional dysregulation and especially anxiety and depressive disorders, past parental abuse, family structure especially in broken families and intermit family violence also stress, isolation and lack of support. As well as attitudes and beliefs (social and cultural norms).

From what I understand your position is that attitudes and beliefs (social and cultural norms) are the only cause.

I think I have given ample evidence for my position. In fact I feel it was getting to a point where I just kept repeating the evidence. Just about every link I found was supporting my position. In fact the reason I take this positionis because there is ample evdience from many independent sources who work with children and families and seem to know what they are talking about.

Just briefly to recap I have provided evidence for a number of different causes of abuse but also from associated issues that also contribute to abuse such as evdience that belief itself stems from psychological distress and disorders and emotional problems where people are primed for irrational belief. How we can track child abuse increases and decreases with socioeconomic status and how prevention programes that increase a families economic status reduces child abuse.

Evidence showing despite large reductions in societies attitudes supporting even any form of CP let alone abuse thuse showing a large majority from memory 80% against abuse and CP there has only been around a 4 or 5% reduction in physical abuse. While at the same time increases in IPV and and violence more generally in sopciety. Which doesn't seem to align with the more awareness today about even microagressions and words being violent. It seems theres a disconnect between the message, peoples attitudes and behaviours.

Lastly I argued that belief is very subjective. People can believe one thing and then change their mind, they can truely believe it and fool themselves, or may not have made up their minds either way.

But its not just based on one source of evidence but also basic psychological principles that apply to human wellbeing which is there is never just one cause such is the human condition but also from social theories where human behaviour is seen through the individual, family/relational and the wider influences of community, neighbourhood, society and culture. They all play a role and to understand why people behave the way they do and prevent abuse and violence we need to take this multifaceted view.

So as I said I am not just arguing by one means but several where it seems the evdience converges into the same findings and conclusions. In other words the different lines of evidence support each other.

I got a bit frustrated I guess like you said you felt about my arguements and thats why I stopped to go back on some of the posts and thats when I realized that you were not responding to the most important evidence, because thats what it comes down to I think otherwise it can keep going around in circles.

Thats why I was insisting that you explain why the links were actually supporting what I said, were refuting what you werte saying and I wanted you to explain how it is these organisations would say such things. Any fair reading would see glaringly that they are saying exactly what I am saying as per my position above.

I totally agree with you that attitudes and beliefs play a role in causing abuse and violence. I just think its a too simplistic view to take when trying to understand abuse and violence in todays society.