> I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.
That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying; this is common among all kinds of abuse victims and is thus not a measure of whether something is or isn't abuse. Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.
> From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse.
I think you suspect wrong. People who object to violence are objecting to violence because they've reasoned out that it's wrong rather than accept what they were taught is acceptable violence from tradition as you seem to have.
> If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means.
And that's faulty reasoning. Lots of things that aren't OK work, that doesn't make them any more acceptable. The question isn't whether it works, the question is is violence the best option, and the answer is no; there is always a better non-violent method of teaching said lesson.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone, regardless of whether it leaves permanent marks, is violent.
> a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
Whether a technique is effective or not has no relevance on whether it's wrong or not. By your reasoning, not feeding my kids for a few days (which won't do any permanent damage) is OK as a form of punishment if it works.
Hitting your child is no less wrong than hitting your spouse. You are engaging in rationalization, not logic.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone is violent by definition. There is no assumption involved, it is violence. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You may be of the opinion that sometimes violence (spanking) is OK, but you are not allowed your own facts.
> That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying;
Telling people you classify as abused that they are fully incapable of speaking for themselves unless they agree with you is pretty despicable, and a kissing cousin to victim blaming.
Well it's a good thing I didn't actually say that. I'll repeat... That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. That is a statement of fact, not opinion. It doesn't in any way say they are incapable of anything, it merely points out that victims don't always realize they are being victimized; this is especially true of children, as anyone should well know.
By stating that you believe spanking is never justified, it implies that, from your viewpoint, spanking is unjustified violence, aka abuse. If someone who has been spanked attempts to tell you that they do not believe they were abused, you have declared their motivation to be either rationalization or denial.
Further, when someone is debating whether or not spanking is "violent," they are speaking in the connotation of inflicting injury and harm. They do not mean it in the sense that force, such as beating an egg, is inherently violent.
I was spanked by my parents and by a grade school teacher. I think it functioned as suitable punishment in my case, and overall I was under-disciplined. Being told that I am inherently unreliable or unable to make the determination that I was abused or not is irritating and disrespectful.
I do believe current parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk (and perhaps tendency) of causing harm, and will avoid it as a method of discipline with my children.
Spanking is demonstrably not an effective way to discipline kids. There is no measurable correlation between whether a child is spanked, and a greater level of discipline or later life outcomes. Numerous research projects have shown that spanked kids do not behave any better, and several have seemed to suggest that kids who are spanked very frequently demonstrate greater aggression and more problems with discipline later in life.
I understand that because it involves our parents and our children, this is a subject that evokes strong emotional responses. But the objective research is very clear, which is why spanking and other physical punishments are no longer part of any professional educational or child-care profession in the U.S.
In the past few decades there have been significant advances in understanding how the human mind and brain develops during childhood. The results of these advances are taught in academia (i.e. a newly minted kindergarten teacher will likely have learned about them), but poorly disseminated to parents.
The essential thing to understand is that a child is not a human. They are in the process of becoming human. So when a child breaks a rule it is not the same thing as when you break a rule. It represents a step in their development that must be guided. So discipline is not about punishment, it is about teaching and coaching.
Did you not read where I stated that parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk of and tendency to cause harm? I also stated I would not be spanking my children as a result of the current understanding of its effects. Do you believe that means I am unable to express an opinion about spanking's specific effect on me?
I don't mean either/or exclusively, I mean could be. You cannot deny that some of the abused don't know they're being abused, especially in the case of children. That's the point I was trying to make and I don't think it's debatable.
There isn't just one definition of "violence" and the word is sometimes defined to include a malicious intent. Rarely would one say that a surgeon violently injures his patient when performing an operation or that the first responders administered violent CPR. Usually people project their own moral value judgements onto the word so that only what they deem as bad or evil acts are "violent". This is less a matter of fact than it is a matter of definition.
As for whether spanking is the most effective option, the jury is still out. It wouldn't be surprising to find a correlation between spanking and slightly lower IQ or later behavioral problems, but does spanking cause either? Can scientific literature that relies on self-reporting by parents show anything useful?
Regardless of effectiveness, should one spank? Is it morally wrong? What basis do we decide the morality of it?
That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying; this is common among all kinds of abuse victims and is thus not a measure of whether something is or isn't abuse. Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.
> From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse.
I think you suspect wrong. People who object to violence are objecting to violence because they've reasoned out that it's wrong rather than accept what they were taught is acceptable violence from tradition as you seem to have.
> If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means.
And that's faulty reasoning. Lots of things that aren't OK work, that doesn't make them any more acceptable. The question isn't whether it works, the question is is violence the best option, and the answer is no; there is always a better non-violent method of teaching said lesson.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone, regardless of whether it leaves permanent marks, is violent.
> a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
Whether a technique is effective or not has no relevance on whether it's wrong or not. By your reasoning, not feeding my kids for a few days (which won't do any permanent damage) is OK as a form of punishment if it works.
Hitting your child is no less wrong than hitting your spouse. You are engaging in rationalization, not logic.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone is violent by definition. There is no assumption involved, it is violence. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You may be of the opinion that sometimes violence (spanking) is OK, but you are not allowed your own facts.