Posted on 09/03/2016 8:24:21 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
New studies have failed to find even a single positive benefit to spanking children and a near endless amount of horrible effects. Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss her latest study, refuting the common pro-spanking arguments, why social justice warriors have nothing to do with less aggressive parenting, associating love with physical abuse and ending the escalating cycle of violence in relationships.
Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff is a developmental psychologist, in addition to being a Faculty Research Associate and Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences at University of Texas at Austin. She recently published a revolutionary new study called “Spanking and Child Outcomes: Old Controversies and New Meta-Analyses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
Well, you set ignorance as the standard for this thread in your original post.
No it is not.
As was pointed out to you earlier, the authors of this garbage didn’t do ANY RESEARCH AT ALL.
They composed a position using other people’s research reinterpreted to mean what they desired it to mean.
Get thee to the Catechism! Oh wait. The CCC is mum on corporal punishment. Well, guess you might consult your Bible.
No? How about a couple of unbelieving head-fakes, then?
We spanked. Have the best kids ever. Never an adolescent incident. A neuro radiologist, mechanical engineer, law student, and finance major. Two were National Merit scholars. Articulate, confident, and all said at high school graduation, “ I want to be like my dad “. It’s why they call it, “ rearing children “.
“My kids turned out great” is NOT a response, certainly not a rebuttal, of the research. It’s like saying, “Economists say that the minimum wage destroys jobs. But that’s bunk, because I have a job.”
“My kids turned out great” is NOT a response, certainly not a rebuttal, of the research. It’s like saying, “Economists say that the minimum wage destroys jobs. But that’s bunk, because I have a job.”
“My kids turned out great” is NOT a response, certainly not a rebuttal, of the research. It’s like saying, “Economists say that the minimum wage destroys jobs. But that’s bunk, because I have a job.”
The research shows that beating and spanking DO NOT differ in their effects. Both have negative effects, and neither has good effects.
Your claim that, because there are two people in the video, ONLY TWO PEOPLE are the source of the assertions in the video, is, of course, moronic.
“My kids turned out great” is NOT a response, certainly not a rebuttal, of the research. It’s like saying, “Economists say that the minimum wage destroys jobs. But that’s bunk, because I have a job.”
People have been drinking camel urine for millennia. Do you drink camel urine?
“My kids turned out great” is NOT a response, certainly not a rebuttal, of the research. It’s like saying, “Economists say that the minimum wage destroys jobs. But that’s bunk, because I have a job.”
The prisons are full of criminals brought up by a mother who never spanked them.
“My kids are great” is the BEST rebuttal to the lame liberal “research “
Spanking works, the Bible is correct, and our depraved and failing Republic is an example of not spanking.
I was responding to your “fringiest of snake handlers” comment about children being taught that they are going to hell! I think the article begs the question since it is apparent based on the decline of our nation that not many children are being disciplined anyway...spankings, scoldings or otherwise! The researcher already had an agenda and her methodology was shaped by her agenda! The question for Christians is can we begin to learn to stand firm against what is an all out onslaught against Biblically based morality based on the laws given to us by our transcendent Triune God? Science can make bombs but reason alone cannot create morality!
Any Behaviorist will tell you than rewarding certain actions encourages their repetition, while punishing others deters them.
If you put a piece of cheese in front of a mouse and then shock it every time it tries to eat the cheese, it will soon stop trying to eat it. If you give the mouse a choice of levers, one of which gives it a shock, the other of which delivers a food pellet, the mouse will soon ignore the shock lever and focus entirely on the reward lever.
Negative reinforcement works, your head-in-the-sand denial notwithstanding. And while I do not drink camel urine, you obviously drink kool-aid. The namby-pamby flavored kind.
I got spanked a few times as did my two siblings. We straightened right up.
Don’t confuse spanking with beating.
MrEdd, you are correct. This study being reported isn’t original research that stands on its own. It is rather a pseudo-study of a collection of prior studies of indeterminate validity. To put this ‘study’ in the category of ‘research’ simply because some type of ‘analysis’ of whatever data was chosen is in my opinion nothing more than convenient subjective manipulation and pre-conceived interpretation of convenient sets of data.
There is so much that could be said in response to your post. Your comment touches on a vast array of theological concepts such as the nature of man, the purpose, extent, and efficacy of the atonement, reprobation, etc. I can’t possibly do these things justice with a quick reply, but I’ve cobbled together a few rambling and disjointed thoughts.
Yes, I believe in the federal headship of Adam. I know men are condemned already because of the sin of Adam. All men inherit the sin nature of our father Adam and stand condemned. The natural man isn’t good, isn’t seeking God, and can’t do right. However, I am in agreement with the Westminster Confession of faith here:
“Every sin, BOTH ORIGINAL AND ACTUAL, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.” W.C.F. 6.6 (emphasis added)
Every individual sin binds those who are not made partakers of Christ into an irremediable punishment.
I’ve definitely read past John 3:16 countless times.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” John 3:18-19
I believe that this passage shows that unbelief is clearly sin. Yes they are condemned because they do not believe in the name of Jesus, but why do they not believe in the name of Jesus? Because they loved darkness more than light, they loved their own sin more than God. If your view that Jesus paid for the sins of all men is correct, what about the sin of unbelief? Is it not covered by the blood of Jesus as well?
Another thing to consider, hearing the message of salvation is itself of God’s grace. Unknown multitudes live and die having never even heard the name of Jesus, let alone the gospel. Those people still go to Hell, but not because of their unbelief. They certainly don’t go to Hell for rejecting a gospel they never heard. Romans 1 teaches they are without excuse because they reject the light of God they did have. Some argue that God would never send anyone to Hell who never heard the gospel. That idea, were it true, would render evangelism and missions unspeakably cruel. Why should a missionary risk his life to evangelize the cannibal tribes of Papua New Guinea if they aren’t even lost in their sin?
To say that Christ died a vicarious death in the place of all sinners but that not all sinners will be saved is a contradiction. If He paid for all the sins of every single man then every single man will be in heaven. Scripture teaches He died for His sheep and His sheep alone. Jesus didn’t merely make salvation possible, He actually saved a people. If one holds to an unlimited atonement while denying universal salvation, one ends up with a redemption that leaves men not totally free or actually redeemed, a reconciliation that leaves men still estranged from God, a propitiation that leaves men still under the wrath of God, and a substitutionary death that still makes the sinner himself help pay the debt of his sin. All of these aspects of the atoning work of Christ then become nothing more than a possibility that relies upon man to make them a reality. But salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9).
The doctrine of limited atonement affirms that the Bible teaches Christ’s atoning work on the cross was done with a definite purpose in mind—to redeem for God people from every tribe, tongue and nation (Revelation 5:9). Jesus died, according to Matthew 1:21, to “save His people from their sins.” This truth is seen in many passages throughout Scripture. In John 10:15, we see that He lays “down His life for the sheep.” Who are the sheep? They are the people chosen by God from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). These are the same ones Jesus said were given to Him by the Father in order that He would fulfill the Father’s will by losing none of them and by raising all of them up in the last day (John 6:37-40). The truth that Jesus came for this specific reason is seen in both the Old and New Testaments. One of the greatest passages on the atonement in the Old Testament is Isaiah 53. In this passage alone, we see that He was “stricken for the transgression of God’s people” (Isaiah 53:8); that He would “justify many” because “He shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11); and that He indeed “bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53:12). These verses and many others talk about an atonement that was specific in whom it covered (God’s people), was substitutionary in nature (He actually bore their sins on the cross), and actually accomplished what God intended it to do (justify many). Clearly, here is a picture of an intentional, definite atonement. Christ died not simply to make justification a possibility but to actually justify those He died for. He died to save them, not to make them savable.
Dr. Clark does a much better and more thorough job with this question than I can.
http://rscottclark.org/2006/08/limited-atonement/
Do you recall why you were spanked?
I’ve seen some silly logical fallacies on the religion forum board over the years. This is an amazing one coming from a priest - using a logical fallacy to try to invalidate Scripture, in order to support some atheist social engineering.
“Do you recall why you were spanked?”
Yeh, I set the vacant lot next door on fire playing with matches after being repeatedly told not to do it. Never played with matches again.
Yeh, I slammed the screen door in my kid sister’s face after repeatedly being told to stop running through the house. Never slammed another door in anybody’s face.
Yeh, I back sassed my mother one time too many after repeatedly being warned to stop. I stopped back sassing my mother. She now lives across the street from me and we are best friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.