Quote:
Originally Posted by Paedantic Basterd
I went to click the link to read the study in-full only to find that it's not even a study. It's an article on a parenting website.
The article also refers to research suggesting that spanking is outright harmful, which you ignored when you pasted the bit about it being a neutral form of discipline.
In fact, the author of the article appears to conclude exactly what I'm trying to tell you: If you don't need to hit someone, don't hit them.
|
The Dr. in the quote cites a specific study though, I just didn't go to that exact one to link more information from there.
Edit:
Quote:
The studies cited by both spanking supporters and detractors are hardly infallible. For starters, you can't study physical punishment in the randomized, double-blind way you can with, say, drug trials. The findings can merely point to an association between spanking and negative (or positive) outcomes rather than a clearly defined cause and effect. So it comes down to a chicken-and-egg problem of sorts: Are kids spanked because they misbehave, or do they misbehave more because they're spanked?
There's also the issue of intent. "A parent who spanks as a form of discipline is quite different from one who strikes with the goal of injuring a child," argues Dr. Trumbull. "Clearly, the long-term effects will be vastly different in these two instances." For this reason, he contends, studies that lump openhanded spanking with potentially abusive methods, like kicking, face-slapping, or paddling with painful objects, are misleading.
|
Those two entire paragraphs backs up my earlier point about both sides of the argument citing studies that only back up their side of the point and how it boils down to the individual's stance.
In fact, you ignored those two paragraphs right above the one you just posted to jump down right below it because of course it goes against what you are saying.