For those who bother to check out the meta study, it says that even for the usually intended purpose of correcting behaviour, spanking is ineffective. Hence, even if there were no negative consequences from spanking (which there are), there would be better ways to correct behaviour.
Somewhat related to the effectiveness of spanking; when spanking proves ineffective, a normal counter-measure from parents is to try and increase the intensity of the spanking. This obviously leads to more violence (and related consequences), but not necessarily better results (behaviour correction).
The assumption that kids can't be reasoned with seems assumptive and lazy. Is that really true (feel free to link to studies)? And even if it is true, which I'm sceptical about, does it mean you're left with violence as the only option? I think not.
Although Chula formulates this argument in a somewhat different way which is hard to disagree with, the argument that "I was beat and turned out fine" is fallacious. You can't know how you would've turned out if you were subjected to a different upbringing and you may carry scars that you are not aware of.
|