I know one person who spanked as a kid. His name? Adolf Hitler. The negative effects of spanking are blatant.

I mean, you're basically pitting your science against mine, and I've been studying the field of psychology (including child development) for half a decade soooo.

If you've got research to link me to, I'd be interested in reading it and evaluating it, but if not, I'm sticking with the information I trust and can validate.

Not sure if you saw this link.

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-s...-is-misleading

Well, first of all, I never claimed that spanking turns kids into psychopaths. I know the research isn't conclusive regarding whether spanking ruins kids. My point has only ever been that (A) spanking has proven to be less effective than other behavioural training methods and (B) if you don't have to hit someone, you shouldn't.

Regarding meta-analysis, the complaints cited are only partially valid and do not detract from the value of meta-analysis as an analytic tool. Complaining about correlational research? In that case you are going to have a problem with literally all of science, because guess what? It's all correlational. It's not possible to isolate a variable in such a way as to definitively prove causation. We can get very close, and the closer the better, but ultimately, it's all correlation.

I only skimmed the rest because this document appears to be about whether meta-analysis has shown that spanking ****s kids up, which is irrelevant to me because that was never my claim.

The article points are that medicine and discipline are areas where meta-analysis is most flawed. And I wouldn't consider physics, math, and electronics as three areas of science that are corellnational.

Which is why vaccines cause autism.

A correlation is simply an association. That association can be strong or weak. The ability of a scientific experiment to uncover strong or weak associations naturally differs depending on the nature of what is being studied. In the fields you mentioned, scientists are working largely with concrete variables, meaning it's easier to uncover strong associations.

Unfortunately, the brain, consciousness, and behaviour are wildly difficult variables to isolate and control. They're basically universes unto themselves. You can't really hold it against science or psychology that researchers are forced to work with weaker associations than in harder sciences due to the nature of what is being studied.

But yeah, a correlation is literally just a tendency for two variables to coincide, and that applies to the "harder" sciences you mentioned as much as it does to the social sciences; it's just much more difficult to eliminate all of the extraneous noise when you're trying to study something as abstract as "personality" or "emotional turmoil" or "well-being".

lol

Really?

^^^^

Agreed.

Spanking is one of those areas where people tend to wholeheartedly believe what was done to them is right. For example I was never smacked - and I would never dream of hitting my kids. I've never even hit an adult let alone a child - the idea is completely abhorrent to me.

Okay, well even without reading the article in full, the section you quoted stated that striking a child works as well as alternative methods. Not better than.

So see point (B) I have been making: If you don't have to hit someone, why the **** are you hitting them?

EDIT: Furthermore, "The researchers concluded that spanking disobedient 2- to 6-year-olds worked just as well at reforming their behavior as 13 alternative disciplinary approaches (such as giving a time-out, reasoning with a child, and taking away privileges) as long as the parent lovingly and rationally explained the reasons for the action."

So even in the material you quoted, the study suggests that it's the explanation that makes the difference in behaviour, not the hitting itself, so again, why the **** are you hitting someone??

EDIT 2: The article you cited literally says there are 13 OTHER ways to effectively train your child apart from hitting them. This is exactly what my point is. Your research backs me up entirely.

The article I cited shows both points of view but also goes on the state further that neither points of the debate are definite. It also backs up what I said earlier about the spank followed up with the explanation.

The spank is used to reinforce the warnings and to take them more seriously. The reason for the spanks is because explanations alone don't work.

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:

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.

Time for my PSA about source citing (this is for the patronizing benefit of everyone, not to single you out): The number of times news articles misinterpret the findings of a scientific study is staggering and it's a major problem present in science. There's a rift between academia and public reporting that needs to be filled. Scientists write articles for other scientists, not for the general public, and that means people who write news articles or blogs or whatever are left trying to decipher the scientist's intentions on their own.

The problem is worse when you look at itfrom the perspective of a researcher because the amount of time scientists spend agonizing over the exact wording of their findings is painstaking. If the precision of your language isn't exact, people can draw differing conclusions from your research that can have wide-reaching impacts when practitioners, businesses, policy-makers, etc. try to implement changes in the real world based on a misunderstanding or insufficient data.

Anyways, just to explain my unyielding preference for firsthand research. You can barely trust a scientist to report their findings accurately, let alone people unstudied in science to interpret those findings.

What? What are you even saying? That because some studies conflict, you should just go with what you feel is right? How about "because some studies conflict, maybe you shouldn't hit people just to be on the safe side, especially since alternative options are available"?

EDIT: Even if you were definitively correct that hitting children causes no long term harm and is equally effective as other methods, shouldn't you opt out of hitting people, simply because you don't have to do it?

Not if you enjoy bright red bottoms!

My point is that you can't back up your claims with the source you cited. My point is that seeing as the jury is out on whether or not hitting kids is explicitly harmful, maybe don't hit kids. I don't need those two paragraphs to make that point and they don't contradict it.

I'm not gonna lie, this is a weird thing to say, even by MB standards.

You do need the spanking if you want that ass to glow.

I can never figure out if OccultHawk quite realizes just how awkward he is or if it makes him masturbate.

I swear to you this is true. In real life, I have never met anyone as simultaneously awkward and liked by others as myself. I'm weird as **** and super caustic but I'm nice as I can be to everyone. You can believe this or not but I've ****ed I don't even know how many women who told me I made the worst first impression possible but somehow I won them over. I've heard so many times things like at first I thought you were the biggest loser but the more I got to know you the more I liked you. I also shift from being to most polite person you've ever met to the most vulgar like instantaneously. Also, I have like no ability to tell what other people think. I can't read people at all. Also, I'm awful with facial recognition and directions but I can talk about books I read decades ago and people say how the **** can you possibly remember all this ****.

No-one is going to sway anyone so saying over and over again that your clinical dick is longer than someone elses is pretty dumb.

Safe to say a vast majority of past generations in the USA were spanked when they were young - and yet the world kept on spinning.

I put the whole "don't spank" thing right alongside the recent "helicopter parenting" thing. Same to a degree for the "no vaccinations" thing.

THINK OF THE POOR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!

Some children need to be spanked; some don't. It depends on the child.

I wasn't spanked as a child.

Not spanking doesn't put a child at risk for polio and the measles.

Did your daughter cry when you lit up that ass?

oh sorry

For reals though

People are like well I had a chunk of my penis sliced off it's all good.

ikr

Yup. My line of thinking is informed by experience not like yours which is informed by assumption. Grow up child.

You love your mutilated dingdong, don't you?

Kinda the same I guess, but kinda the opposite too. I'm often super reserved at first so I doubt that I make any kind of impression whatsoever, then I'll slowly warm up but still be boring until I reach a kind of critical mass and then The Batlord comes out and nobody can understand how I can be 30-years-old and such a childish twat with no mouth filter. By that point either the person/people can't stand me or I'm sort of like a really irritating little brother they affectionately put up with but still never invite to parties. Never had the experience of a woman telling me I won them over though. Kinda hard to be seen as a sexual object when all you do is deliver corny and/or mean spirited one liners and constantly come up with new ways to confuse and annoy people. You have no idea how many times people have looked at me like an alien when I told them how old I was.

Yup. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

How many women have you ****ed?

I am surprised Chula didn't call you out for invoking Godwin's law. He be off his game sometimes.

Adolf Hitler had a very strict father and a doting mother. Plus wasn't he shell shocked from the war or had a nervous breakdown? He might some psychological problem effecting his rational judgement. A spanking didn't turn him into a Hitler.

Just the one, and one dude. I have absolutely no way with women.

He was temporarily blinded for like 3 days by some kind of gas (I think mustard) in WWI. He also served as a messenger across no man's land going from trench to trench. I'm sure it really was very traumatic.

Yeah you do. You just gotta keep throwing your hat in the ring. Even rejection is interaction. Take it to the whack-shack and tomorrow's a new day.

This is not an argument Chula.

And that's why nobody can take you seriously in a debate.