Adrian Peterson indicted for reckless/negligent injury to a child

[riboflav]

The twitter feed of Nick Wright, the reporter who got both Peterson's and the son's accounts, is worth following. Here's some tweets:

https://mobile.twitter.com/getnickwright
 

 
He hit me and it felt like a kiss. I never knew love could feel like this.

 

[veritas]

We don't do enough to protect children. In school, if a child commits an assault against another child - one that would lead to serious jail time if it were an adult committing the crime - it's maybe a three-day time out from school.

Supposedly, spanking is unpleasant enough to get their attention, but not enough to cause any lasting harm. Peterson's statement indicates that he feels strongly that's the case in that he talks about the end of the stick causing a serious cut. So his intent was clear.

The problem from a teaching perspective is that even the swat on the butt when it's not hard enough to cause bruising or a laceration only teaches obedience through fear. It's still about "I own you, this is how I exert control."

I don't see this as an issue as serious as what Ray Rice did. As guardians, we have a responsibility to set boundaries, to teach. Ray Rice does not have that responsibility with his fiance (now wife). Peterson is misguided, and he crossed the line anyway with regard to how hard he hit his son. Kids test their boundaries constantly, and it's up to us as parents to control our anger in response. To think about discipline before we act. If you're spanking because you're pissed off at that moment, what's the lesson?

As far as intent goes, I think there's a world of difference between Rice and Peterson, and whatever punishment he receives should reflect that difference. It's just awful timing coming right on the heels of all that waffling on the Rice case.

 
Agree on all of this. AP did something very bad here. But as terrible as it was, it seems like he was trying to do what he thought was correct and ended up doing something WAY outside of what is socially acceptable and morally correct in many people's eyes (myself included). I don't think ignorance can absolve him of wrongdoing, but it can't be ignored either. There are a lot of people who think this type of thing is not only acceptable, but a positive way to raise a child.
 
Ray Rice knocked out his fiancee with an uppercut to the face. That's just wrong, it's a black and white issue. Even men who hit their wives all the time know it's wrong.
 
edit: Peterson's upbringing is much worse than I remembered. I thought he came from a two parent family and his dad was in the military, but I must be confusing him with someone else. Again, not making excuses for him at all, but it would be naive to think this sort of punishment wasn't common to him growing up

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
Agree on all of this. AP did something very bad here. But as terrible as it was, it seems like he was trying to do what he thought was correct and ended up doing something WAY outside of what is socially acceptable and morally correct in many people's eyes (myself included). I don't think ignorance can absolve him of wrongdoing, but it can't be ignored either. There are a lot of people who think this type of thing is not only acceptable, but a positive way to raise a child.
 
Ray Rice knocked out his fiancee with an uppercut to the face. That's just wrong, it's a black and white issue. Even men who hit their wives all the time know it's wrong.
 
edit: Peterson's upbringing is much worse than I remembered. I thought he came from a two parent family and his dad was in the military, but I must be confusing him with someone else. Again, not making excuses for him at all, but it would be naive to think this sort of punishment wasn't common to him growing up

Yeah, except for the fact that someone beat one of his other children to death recently. If that's not going to get you to reexamine your attitudes towards hitting children then nothing will.

 

[riboflav]

 
Agree on all of this. AP did something very bad here. But as terrible as it was, it seems like he was trying to do what he thought was correct and ended up doing something WAY outside of what is socially acceptable and morally correct in many people's eyes (myself included). I don't think ignorance can absolve him of wrongdoing, but it can't be ignored either. There are a lot of people who think this type of thing is not only acceptable, but a positive way to raise a child.
 
Ray Rice knocked out his fiancee with an uppercut to the face. That's just wrong, it's a black and white issue. Even men who hit their wives all the time know it's wrong.
 
edit: Peterson's upbringing is much worse than I remembered. I thought he came from a two parent family and his dad was in the military, but I must be confusing him with someone else. Again, not making excuses for him at all, but it would be naive to think this sort of punishment wasn't common to him growing up

 
Hitting a kid on the other hand, well, I mean, come on, it's a kid , they sometimes deserve it, no? They're like even weaker and smaller, right? Whatever, man, just hit them. They'll learn.
 
I feel better knowing that AP thought he was doing the right thing when he beat the fucking shit out of his kid. 

 

[Myt1]

Immanuel Kant be turning over in his motherfucking grave after reading your post.

Morality in our society is found within our rules of law. People who want second and third and fourth bites at the apple in the way you've described are the spoiled toddlers at the party.

I'd point out that firing someone for an off the field behavior is perfectly within our rules of law and therefore acceptable, but if you really think that morality is only codified in rules of law, I think we know who the toddler is.

 

[mauf]

This thread is missing the perspective of someone who has disciplined a child with a switch or similar object. There must be several people reading this thread who have done so -- it's still mainstream behavior, and was only more so a generation ago.

Not having disciplined my children this way or been disciplined this way myself, I have a lot of questions. No one thinks what happened here is OK, but does a switch normally leave a mark? If so, what kind and how big? Can you cross the line and cause real injury through momentary carelessness, or is it like regular spanking where this isn't a real risk unless you lose your temper? And do you have to be careful not to hit a boy in the scrotum with the switch, or is that as incomprehensible to you as it is to me?

 

[riboflav]

Defend the claim - it is morally and ethically acceptable to hit a child (even repeatedly) but not another adult.

 

[SumnerH]

Immanuel Kant be turning over in his motherfucking grave after reading your post.

Morality in our society is found within our rules of law. People who want second and third and fourth bites at the apple in the way you've described are the spoiled toddlers at the party.

Horse fucking shit. Laws are meant for things that are nearly unanimously considered so far beyond the pale that there is near unanimous support for imposing state penalties on them. There's plenty of stuff that most people think is immoral but isn't so bad as to warrant legal sanctions.

 

[Myt1]

I'm glad we can have a thread conflating beating the sit out of a kid with spanking him because both are always wrong.  You guys should do a breastfeeding one next.

 

[dcmissle]

As expected, AP was booked, posted bond and released early this morning. He easily could have made tomorrow's game; Patriots fans can thank the Vikings (I think many if not most NFL teams would have allowed him to play).

This presents an interesting problem to the League. We have the pictures: we don't have a disposition of the criminal case and probably won't for months.

The Vikings could impose their own discipline -- you won't play for another week -- and hope the League will not pile much on top of that.

 

[JayMags71]

I'm glad we can have a thread conflating beating the sit out of a kid with spanking him because both are always wrong.  You guys should do a breastfeeding one next.

OK, so where is the line between "spanking" and "beating the shit out of a kid"? How many hits? One? Five?

Some people like to use paddles. What implements are acceptable? Spatulas? Ping-pong paddles?

If I can spank my kids, can I spank my wife? If not, why not?

I'm speaking as a matter of practicality here: isn't it just easier to say "don't hit people" than try to establish arbitrary lines?

 

[Judge Mental13]

Thoughts are still somewhat divided on spanking, but it's been over 20 years since high school health classes were teaching that striking a child with an object is wrong and psychologists were classifying it as child abuse.

You have an obligation as a parent to realize that former generations are often wrong and look to a more modern consensus. If you're a year or four behind the curve that sucks but it's somewhat forgivable (imo). But when you're doing things that society and specialists have deemed unacceptable for decades, you fucked up in a bad way.

 
High school health classes were teaching teenagers that striking a child with an object is wrong?  I was in high school around that time and I definitely don't remember that lesson.  And I very much disagree with your idea of a "modern consensus".  Society is way too big to pin down like that.  If you think Peterson represents a small minority of fathers in America who have hit their kids with an object I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
 
As for specialists, I haven't formally studied the topic but what I've heard and read arguments from both sides.  Domestic corporal punishment is legal in most places, and it's effectiveness has been debated for hundreds of years, and in those hundreds of years millions of kids got hit with a belt when they fucked up and the debates continued and still continue today, so I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to.
 
Oh, and a lot of people have brought up Adrian Peterson's other son who was killed by his stepfather and said things like "Well, if he doesn't see NOW that hitting a child is wrong he never will!" that take is, in my opinion, insane.  To put that guy in South Dakota who murdered a 2 year old in the same sentence as a father who hit his kid on the ass with a stick too hard is ridiculous.

 

[JayMags71]

Example- my kids 2, 3.5, and 6 have been told calmly and repeatedly to not run in a parking lot.  They know it, they repeat it, they get it. Yet my 3.5 son ran out of a store from my wife and through the parking lot.  This qualifies for an ass whooping.  If you dont whoop your kids ass for repeatedly running through a parking lot then I question your parenting skills. .

I dunno. I (along with my siblings and most of my friends) was able to teach my kids not to run thru a parking lot without "whooping" them.

Your kids are are probably just stupider than most. No surprise there. Apples, trees, etc.

 

[moondog80]

I'm lost. If beating a woman is wrong because of size/strength issues, why would beating a child be ok?

There is a power of authority you have over a child that is not there with an adult.  This enables me do things like make them go to bed early,  take dessert away from them, and not letting them go outside after dark.  I couldn't do any of those things with my wife.

 

[garlan5]

I dunno. I (along with my siblings and most of my friends) was able to teach my kids not to run thru a parking lot without "whooping" them.

Your kids are are probably just stupider than most. No surprise there. Apples, trees, etc.

Nice contribution to the thread. people who think they know everything and that their opinion is always the right one usually don't figure it out until later in life or until something happens to show them the light. Congratulations on your superior kids who never needed correction in the form of a whooping unlike so many other kids in the country. There is a big difference in kids who are beat by parents, kids who have parents who use whoopings the right way, and kids who got by without whoopings. Calling my kids or anyones kids stupider because they received discipline for bad behavior really shows what kind of person you are. I respect people who can get away without having to use whoopings as form of discipline. I have zero respect for someone who posts the garbage as you have in your reply.

 

[garlan5]

This thread is missing the perspective of someone who has disciplined a child with a switch or similar object. There must be several people reading this thread who have done so -- it's still mainstream behavior, and was only more so a generation ago.

Not having disciplined my children this way or been disciplined this way myself, I have a lot of questions. No one thinks what happened here is OK, but does a switch normally leave a mark? If so, what kind and how big? Can you cross the line and cause real injury through momentary carelessness, or is it like regular spanking where this isn't a real risk unless you lose your temper? And do you have to be careful not to hit a boy in the scrotum with the switch, or is that as incomprehensible to you as it is to me?

my generation grew up having to get your own switch. The switch stung and was usually used on the lower leg. Rarely did the switch get used the mere factor of having to go get it caused myself or my friends to stop whatever we were doing that created the problem. I've never seen anyone get whelps from a switch. It wasn't used to beat a kid like ap did.

 

[LeftyTG]

I'm glad we can have a thread conflating beating the sit out of a kid with spanking him because both are always wrong.  You guys should do a breastfeeding one next.

exactly
 

OK, so where is the line between "spanking" and "beating the shit out of a kid"? How many hits? One? Five?

Some people like to use paddles. What implements are acceptable? Spatulas? Ping-pong paddles?

If I can spank my kids, can I spank my wife? If not, why not?

I'm speaking as a matter of practicality here: isn't it just easier to say "don't hit people" than try to establish arbitrary lines?

What is so arbitrary about not leaving bruises?  Reasonable minds can differ on the responsible use of physical discipline.  For those that choose to discipline that way, responsible use of physical discipline does not leave marks.  This is what is codified in the statutory definition of abuse in the Texas Family Code 261.001(1)(C):
 
"Abuse" includes the following acts or omissions by a person:
(C) physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm.
 
Certain terms are clarified in the Texas Administrative Code.
40 TAC 700.501(13) "...reasonable discipline...that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm..." Correction of a child's behavior that does not result in or risk substantial harm from physical injury
 
40 TAC 700.501(17) Substantial harm.  Real and significant physical injury to a child that includes, but is not limited to, bruises, cuts, welts, skull or other bone fractures, brain damage, subdural hematoma, internal injuries, burns, scalds, wounds poisoning, human bites, concussions, and dislocations and sprains
 
 
 

 
High school health classes were teaching teenagers that striking a child with an object is wrong?  I was in high school around that time and I definitely don't remember that lesson.  And I very much disagree with your idea of a "modern consensus".  Society is way too big to pin down like that.  If you think Peterson represents a small minority of fathers in America who have hit their kids with an object I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
 
As for specialists, I haven't formally studied the topic but what I've heard and read arguments from both sides.  Domestic corporal punishment is legal in most places, and it's effectiveness has been debated for hundreds of years, and in those hundreds of years millions of kids got hit with a belt when they fucked up and the debates continued and still continue today, so I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to.
 
Oh, and a lot of people have brought up Adrian Peterson's other son who was killed by his stepfather and said things like "Well, if he doesn't see NOW that hitting a child is wrong he never will!" that take is, in my opinion, insane.  To put that guy in South Dakota who murdered a 2 year old in the same sentence as a father who hit his kid on the ass with a stick too hard is ridiculous.

yes
 

I dunno. I (along with my siblings and most of my friends) was able to teach my kids not to run thru a parking lot without "whooping" them.

Your kids are are probably just stupider than most. No surprise there. Apples, trees, etc.

Your kids are probably just more assholish than most.  No surprise there.  Apples, trees, etc.

 

[Reverend]

I'd respond, but I have it on good authority that literally no one cares about my opinions or the experiences that inform them. See you all around.

That belt didn't toughen you up much, huh?

 

[luckiestman]

There is a power of authority you have over a child that is not there with an adult.  This enables me do things like make them go to bed early,  take dessert away from them, and not letting them go outside after dark.  I couldn't do any of those things with my wife.

This power of authority makes me believe children should be protected more not less from physical harm. But just like husband wife domestic violence, if you punish the abuser you also indirectly punish the abused. Awful situation

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

beating kids like AP did is just wrong.  Slapping kids is wrong. A spanking on the ass for dropping a cup of juice is wrong.  Spanking a kid on the ass, and i'm not talking whale on the kid, for doing something for the thousandth time after not listening is sometimes, again sometimes, acceptable.  Example- my kids 2, 3.5, and 6 have been told calmly and repeatedly to not run in a parking lot.  They know it, they repeat it, they get it. Yet my 3.5 son ran out of a store from my wife and through the parking lot.  This qualifies for an ass whooping.  If you dont whoop your kids ass for repeatedly running through a parking lot then I question your parenting skills. 
 
edit- for clarity when I say ass whooping I'm still not talking about a vicious beating. even though that should be obvious. 

Invest in one of these
 

 
This isn't hard, people. Don't hit anyone, especially children and women.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I was spanked d as a kid and thought I would spank my kids too until I had them. I honestly cannot imagine doing it. I'm not sure I think it should always be criminal, but to me it is always wrong.

Maybe I am lucky and my kids responded to other kinds of discipline, I don't know. As mad as I have ever been at them and as badly as they have misbehaved, I just never felt that hitting them would send the right message. There are many other effective ways to discipline a child that does not involve striking them.

 

[JayMags71]

I respect people who can get away without having to use whoopings as form of discipline. I have zero respect for someone who posts the garbage as you have in your reply.

So, calling your kids stupid is a worse offense than hitting them.

Cognitive dissonance is a motherfucker.

 

[garlan5]

I was spanked d as a kid and thought I would spank my kids too until I had them. I honestly cannot imagine doing it. I'm not sure I think it should always be criminal, but to me it is always wrong.

Maybe I am lucky and my kids responded to other kinds of discipline, I don't know. As mad as I have ever been at them and as badly as they have misbehaved, I just never felt that hitting them would send the right message. There are many other effective ways to discipline a child that does not involve striking them.

Smart parenting is getting the results needed. Props for being able to get it done.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
Agree on all of this. AP did something very bad here. But as terrible as it was, it seems like he was trying to do what he thought was correct and ended up doing something WAY outside of what is socially acceptable and morally correct in many people's eyes (myself included). I don't think ignorance can absolve him of wrongdoing, but it can't be ignored either. There are a lot of people who think this type of thing is not only acceptable, but a positive way to raise a child.
 
Ray Rice knocked out his fiancee with an uppercut to the face. That's just wrong, it's a black and white issue. Even men who hit their wives all the time know it's wrong.
 
edit: Peterson's upbringing is much worse than I remembered. I thought he came from a two parent family and his dad was in the military, but I must be confusing him with someone else. Again, not making excuses for him at all, but it would be naive to think this sort of punishment wasn't common to him growing up

I'd like to know what behavioral changes AP made AFTER seeing the injuries to his child. Did he continue using the switch in the same manner that caused these injuries or did he realize that maybe what he was doing was wrong? I second the upbringing part......you only know what you know.

* My Dad told me stories about how him and his brothers used to "get the belt" when they screwed up. I got "the hand" from him and only recall one occasion when I was threatened with the belt (although the hand from a former college wrestler was enough to scare me straight at least for a little while) but he never used it on me. Why didn't he use it on me? Did something resonate with him that the belt was over the line? Apparently.

* In the 70's I was 8 years old and got throw out of class due to behavioral issues......for whatever reason I felt it was a good idea to jump on the desk and do the Chief Jay Strongbow dance for the class but I digress. Minutes later I'm in the principals office and catch an Open-Handed SLAP across my face BY THE PRINCIPAL! Does this make him an animal? Years later in my 20's when I played in a local pro-am summer basketball league he would show up for every game and was one of my biggest fans. He wasn't an animal......he only knew what he knew.

* When I was in my late-20's my girlfriends 4-year old did something wrong and out obvious reaction from both of us was for her to be spanked based on how we were both raised. After I saw the mark it left the next day it resonated with me that "Oh crap THIS is not right! What did this kid do that was that bad to leave a red mark and cut like that?" It was that moment which changed how I felt about corporal punishment and the child was never spanked again. Back to my original question........Did the lightbulb go off for AP in the same way? To me this is the most critical question that we need the answer to before judging AP.

And No, I was never taught in any health class about these dangers. (See: Ass whooping from my principal as further proof). My principal, my Dad and myself......all good people. We only knew what we knew. There comes a point where one should LEARN what they don't know.......I did, I want to know if Adrian Peterson did.

 

[garlan5]

Invest in one of these
 

 
This isn't hard, people. Don't hit anyone, especially children and women.

Sorry that's not for me. If its okay for you to say its not okay to discipline my child when they need it then I feel its okay for me to say that's not a form of correcting that I feel is acceptable, for me.

 

[JayMags71]

exactly
 

What is so arbitrary about not leaving bruises?  Reasonable minds can differ on the responsible use of physical discipline.  For those that choose to discipline that way, responsible use of physical discipline does not leave marks.

Yeah, but in the moment, how can you be certain the action you're taking isn't going to leave marks? Why is the bright shining line of "don't hit people" so wrong?

Your kids are probably just more assholish than most.  No surprise there.  Apples, trees, etc.

Calling someone's kids stupid in the furtherance of making a rhetorical point leads me to be considered a bigger asshole than someone who hits their kids? I'll take that trade-off.

 

[Hendoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfIsPqqIbE

 

[NoXInNixon]

Smart parenting is getting the results needed. Props for being able to get it done.

What is the result you're looking for? In the short term, hitting a kid will quickly teach him not to do something. If it's something potentially life-threatening like running in a parking lot, maybe, MAYBE, I could see why someone would think it's OK. But if a kid can't be trusted not to run in a parking lot, there are other ways to deal with the issue, such as not giving them the freedom  in the first place, or taking away a favorite toy every time they do it or something like that.
 
In the long run, hitting your kid will make them more likely to commit violence, because in addition to teaching them that whatever they did was wrong, you've also taught them violence solves problems. Which is a horrible thing to teach.

 

[garlan5]

So, calling your kids stupid is a worse offense than hitting them.

Cognitive dissonance is a motherfucker.

Yes you calling my kids stupid IS worse than me handling my kids in a fashion that works for their safety and for their discipline level. Its rare they get a whopping but sometimes it is needed.

 

[Infield Infidel]

This is the one week I wish we still had Spikes.

A switch is bad enough, now you want spikes?!?!?!?

 

[garlan5]

What is the result you're looking for? In the short term, hitting a kid will quickly teach him not to do something. If it's something potentially life-threatening like running in a parking lot, maybe, MAYBE, I could see why someone would think it's OK. But if a kid can't be trusted not to run in a parking lot, there are other ways to deal with the issue, such as not giving them the freedom  in the first place, or taking away a favorite toy every time they do it or something like that.
 
In the long run, hitting your kid will make them more likely to commit violence, because in addition to teaching them that whatever they did was wrong, you've also taught them violence solves problems. Which is a horrible thing to teach.

Sorry you cannot make a judgment like that. You are making an extreme case in the wrong direction. That's the equivalent of me saying people who don't discipline their kids with a whooping raise kids who don't listen and grow up to be a problem child to society.
For the record we take toys and take freedoms away first. Instances I used, like my son one time running through a parking lot, resulted in the need for immediate results. Taking a toy was not sufficient in that scenario

 

[JayMags71]

Honest questions: like NIN said: is it more effective than the threat of taking away their favorite toy, food or screen time? Is it more effective than positive reinforcement for good behaviors?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Leather]

Studies, anecdotes, what's the difference.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

I was spanked d as a kid and thought I would spank my kids too until I had them. I honestly cannot imagine doing it. I'm not sure I think it should always be criminal, but to me it is always wrong.....

 
Yeah - this.  I was spanked, and clearly remembering my father as he did it saying he got the belt, but I was lucky not to. I thought it would be part of parenting my kids, but my wife said 'no fucking way' and I came around to agreeing with her. 

One likes to think there is an arc of progress in human civilization. But it doesn't move monolithically - some are ahead of the curve, some behind and most are in the middle. 

Yes, this type of punishment will change kid's behaviors, so mission accomplished. But it neither makes them more mature, nor strengthens family bonds. 

 

[Myt1]

OK, so where is the line between "spanking" and "beating the shit out of a kid"? How many hits? One? Five?

Some people like to use paddles. What implements are acceptable? Spatulas? Ping-pong paddles?

If I can spank my kids, can I spank my wife? If not, why not?

I'm speaking as a matter of practicality here: isn't it just easier to say "don't hit people" than try to establish arbitrary lines?

You think telling parents they can't spank their kids and enforcing that is on the right side of the "practicality" argument? Because the number of DYS investigations needs to go up to save kids from being spanked or because if some silly slippery slope fallacy in which we pretend that most of society can't distinguish between leaving tens of lacerations all over a four year old's legs, buttocks, hands, and scrotum?

All law making is an exercise in drawing lines.

 

[SumnerH]

High school health classes were teaching teenagers that striking a child with an object is wrong?

Yes.  Even spanking (without an object) was presented very dimly in mine, though its use in cases where immediately harmful behavior needed to stop was admitted as possibly necessary.
 

And I very much disagree with your idea of a "modern consensus".

Obviously society is a wide and varied place, and there are a lot of idiots in it. But among experts, there is very much a consensus.  The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote in the 1990s (and has reaffirmed on numerous occasions since) that:
 

Spanking, as discussed here, refers to striking a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intention of modifying behavior without causing physical injury. Other forms of physical punishment, such as striking a child with an object, striking a child on parts of the body other than the buttocks or extremities, striking a child with such intensity that marks lasting more than a few minutes occur, pulling a child's hair, jerking a child by the arm, shaking a child, and physical punishment delivered in anger with intent to cause pain, are unacceptable and may be dangerous to the health and well-being of the child. These types of physical punishment should never be used.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/4/723.long
 
Hell, Dr. Spock was recommending against it in the 1950s in what is the #2 selling book of the 20th century (after the Bible) in the US.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Honest questions: like NIN said: is it more effective than the threat of taking away their favorite toy, food or screen time? Is it more effective than positive reinforcement for good behaviors?

I'll hang up and listen.

Are we talking about ideal parenting or what many people know? I don't know AP at all but from he insinuated that he was whipped when he was young (electrical cord) so maybe he doesn't know any better.

However, if he is adjudged to have committed a crime, ignorance won't help him much.

On a more global note, the NFL is an incredibly violent sport played by men who tolerate/thrive/enjoy the violence. If the NFL is going to hand down consistent, long-term punishment for violence against children or partners or families or strangers, upon any demonstration of credible evidence, there could be a lot of players on the sidelines in the months and years to come.

Not that I am against it but just pointing out how difficult the task is going to be.

 

[garlan5]

Honest questions: like NIN said: is it more effective than the threat of taking away their favorite toy, food or screen time? Is it more effective than positive reinforcement for good behaviors?

I'll hang up and listen.

Positive reinforcement is always a first source of encouragement and its affective. I'm not arguing against this at all. It seems that people are lumping a whopping to child abuse like what AP did. And lumping purple who whoop their kids as bad parents. Its not for every parent and its not for every kid. My kids do not fear me or my wife.

 

[Myt1]

Studies, anecdotes, what's the difference.

Yeah. The rigorous studies regarding spanking that we're able to eliminate noise sufficient for scientific certainty to the extent that the government should get involved to outlaw spanking. I'm sure there won't be any I intended consequences over criminalizing a behavior that does little damage, and, hey, there's like a line around the block of stable places to put displaced kids, right?

I mean, they did science to it. This is why you guys should do a breast feeding one next. Why talk about the guy who beat the hell out of his kid when you can just spend multiple posts acting superior to other parents who don't.

 

[PBDWake]

I feel really weird on this one. I'm with pretty much everyone on the "This was fucked up, it's awful, he never ever should have done this. Beating a child with a belt, switch, whatever you want to call it... It's never acceptable" front. But I just can't muster up the same furor as I can for Ray Rice. I feel like I probably should be more angry than I am, but I'm just not. I'm just sad. I was lucky enough to grow up in a healthy household. I got the open hand across my ass (mostly for lying to my parents, when I was notably older than 4) a couple times growing up, but never anything I felt for more than a few minutes after.
 
On the other hand, I know not everybody was lucky enough to grow up like I did. For some, it's just the norm that you'd get the switch, and they live an insulated life enough that they just have no clue. And when you're raised like that, I think, if you turn out to be a wildly successful adult, you can romanticize that type of raising as what made you the man you were. I don't think Adrian Peterson is a monster. I think he's an idiot, and he needs serious punishment of his own, but he's not Ray Rice to me. I think Ray Rice might be a sociopath. I think Adrian Peterson, hopefully, can learn and adjust if he gets help.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

Horse fucking shit. Laws are meant for things that are nearly unanimously considered so far beyond the pale that there is near unanimous support for imposing state penalties on them. There's plenty of stuff that most people think is immoral but isn't so bad as to warrant legal sanctions.

Things like domestic and child abuse? I have no idea what you could possibly be arguing considering I have consistently stated that I believe the NFL should refrain from delving into punishing players for things that are not related to football (in part, because a system of judgment for actions conducted at those times already exist). No hyperbole here: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make and how it impacts my comments.

Myt-I noted that a legal outline for the rights of employees and employers exists about a dozen posts before your sarcastic post this morning. I'll assume you didn't make the effort to look further into the context of the conversation to which you were replying, which we all do from time to time. By the way, it's this framework that makes the decision to rule of off-field, non-football acts by players silly. They've created their own program and suck at it. Maybe they should consider not doing it or hiring someone qualified to do it if they insist.

Simple - I think that catering to the masses is a mistake. They have to stand some ground. and I believe they can do it by acknowledging they're over their heads. Is that enough reality for everyone?

 

[SumnerH]

beating kids like AP did is just wrong.  Slapping kids is wrong. A spanking on the ass for dropping a cup of juice is wrong.  Spanking a kid on the ass, and i'm not talking whale on the kid, for doing something for the thousandth time after not listening is sometimes, again sometimes, acceptable.  Example- my kids 2, 3.5, and 6 have been told calmly and repeatedly to not run in a parking lot.  They know it, they repeat it, they get it. Yet my 3.5 son ran out of a store from my wife and through the parking lot.  This qualifies for an ass whooping.  If you dont whoop your kids ass for repeatedly running through a parking lot then I question your parenting skills. 

 
I'm not going to argue about whether there are some circumstances where a spanking might be justifiable, but it's certainly not the case that it's a necessary part of good parenting.  It's not just hippie countries like Sweden, Norway, and Finland that have outlawed it and somehow survived, it's also much of Europe (and not just western Europe, like Germany and Spain, but places like Poland and the Ukraine) and even parts of the developing world (Venezuela and Kenya and South Sudan).

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

...My kids do not fear me or my wife.

 
Of course you don't know this, as they'd be too scared to tell you if they did.  

 

[Judge Mental13]

Yes.  Even spanking (without an object) was presented very dimly in mine, though its use in cases where immediately harmful behavior needed to stop was admitted as possibly necessary.
 

Obviously society is a wide and varied place, and there are a lot of idiots in it. But among experts, there is very much a consensus.  The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote in the 1990s (and has reaffirmed on numerous occasions since) that:
 
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/4/723.long
 
Hell, Dr. Spock was recommending against it in the 1950s in what is the #2 selling book of the 20th century (after the Bible) in the US.

 
Diana Bauhmrind's take is a lot closer to mine: 
 

 She has also cautioned that neither the pro-spanking nor anti-spanking studies is truly scientific, in the sense that physics or chemistry experiments are scientific, as they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, there are too many disparate factors that might influence the results, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs.  Link

 

[moly99]

One complicating factor: I suspect that parents who get off on spanking are those who lack the parenting skills to raise children through other means.
 
I don't have kids, but I have two nieces, and it's been my experience that positive reinforcement and lesson through action are all you need with children. Where people go wrong is in using positive reinforcement for negative behavior. IE giving your kid a treat to shut them up when they are having a tantrum.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Sorry you cannot make a judgment like that. You are making an extreme case in the wrong direction. That's the equivalent of me saying people who don't discipline their kids with a whooping raise kids who don't listen and grow up to be a problem child to society.
For the record we take toys and take freedoms away first. Instances I used, like my son one time running through a parking lot, resulted in the need for immediate results. Taking a toy was not sufficient in that scenario

 
You can justify it to yourself however you want, but you cannot deny that spanking a child sends a message that violence is acceptable in some circumstances.  Does it make them more likely to commit violence?  I don't know the answer to that, but that is unquestionably the message you are sending to your children.
 
You seem to be saying that some types of misbehavior can only be dealt with through "whoopings". As a father of four who has seen pretty much every type of misbehavior you can imagine (through age 12 at least) I honestly don't get this.  Are your kids truly awful to the point where they only respond to violence?  Because why else would you ever resort to that as a punishment?

 

[SumnerH]

 
Diana Bauhmrind's take is a lot closer to mine: 
 

 
You should read her work, or at least the second half of the wikipedia blurb, because she agrees completely with me.  Her objection is to anti-spanking advocates (which I've explicitly not been).  But she opposes striking with an object (and even more--she also opposes any striking on the face or basically anything other than bare-handed spanking on the bottom), just as the AAP does.  

 

[JayMags71]

It's not just hippie countries like Sweden, Norway, and Finland that have outlawed it and somehow survived, it's also much of Europe (and not just western Europe, like Germany and Spain, but places like Poland and the Ukraine) and even parts of the developing world (Venezuela and Kenya and South Sudan).

Do you have a cite for this? I'm only finding instances of corporal punishment being outlawed in schools.

 

[SumnerH]

Do you have a cite for this? I'm only finding instances of corporal punishment being outlawed in schools.

 
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/11/08/country.comparisons.corporal.punishment/ has a rundown from a few years ago, you can click on the "corporal punishment prohibited in the home" header to see that list of countries (or the "prohibited in school" header to see that list). 
 
EDIT: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/prohib_states.html has a more recent list, but is a polemical site on the topic (I have no particular reason to distrust their facts on the list of countries, but the site has a clear bias).

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I don't have kids, but I have two nieces, and it's been my experience that positive reinforcement and lesson through action are all you need with children. Where people go wrong is in using positive reinforcement for negative behavior. IE giving your kid a treat to shut them up when they are having a tantrum.

I'm not a spanker (and I was spanked by a wooden spoon when I was young, and I'm sure my Dad left welts on me), but this is completely wrong. Even four-year olds do things that have to have negative consequences. It doesn't have to be violent, but you can't reason with a four-year-old.

I understand that "we" (I mean the demographics in SOSH) have moved away from he "spare the rod, spoil the child" parenting style. I believe this has to something to do with the fact that the lack of time that two-income households have with their kids on a day-to-day basis influences how they parent. But this change doesn't have consequences of its own on our children's behaviour.

edit:  speaking of abuse towards children, abuse isn't necessary violent.  For example, when a friend of mine (daughter of a doctor) was young and said something bad, her mother used to stuff her mouth full of jalapeños, make her chew, and then then send her out on a mile run around a pound without letting her spit out the jalapeños or rinse her mouth.  Is this better than spanking?