He raises valid points, but it got more interesting when he was questioned (beginning around 18:50).
The problem I have is that he seems to take "human flourishing" as the basis for determining "objective morality."
Is it? What happens when human flourishing encroaches on the rights of other species to enjoy the space they find themselves placed in, which it already has? And for that matter, why restrict this question to members of the animal kingdom only?
Patrick
at March 31, 2010 3:43 AM
By the way, he used the expression, "patently obvious." What's his email address? I want to ask him if where it would fall under his concept of "objective morality" to STONE THE MOTHERFUCKERS WHO USE REDUNDANT EXPRESSIONS!
Patrick
at March 31, 2010 3:48 AM
Science requires more than factual claims; it also requires the ability to test those claims. One of the claims that Harris makes is that the well-being of humans is desirable. I agree with him, for religious reasons, but he does not establish how science can test the moral validity of that claim. There are plausible explanations for why humans desire the well-being of humans, but there is no way that I am aware of to scientifically demonstrate that that claim is an absolute moral truth.
Harris claims that use of corporal punishment is motivated by religion, and not by anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. I disagree; if it didn't work, it wouldn't be used by millions of responsible, loving parents to successfully raise well-adjusted children into adulthood.
I agree with what Harris says in opposition to relative morality. The Dalai Lama and Ted Bundy do not have equally valid worldviews.
Whenever someone says "we cannot tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being" they usually disagree with me about what constitutes "vast" and I expect an imminent attempt to force a minor difference on me. As someone else said, what he describes is fulfilled by the Catholic Church of the middle ages, when dissent was not tolerated.
His conclusion: "We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life." Why? I agree that it would be nice if more people agreed with me, but I most won't, and in fact, tolerance of dissent makes it more likely that truth will be discovered.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/31/sam_harris_scie.html#comment-1705669">comment from Pseudonym
wouldn't be used by millions
The fact that many people believe in religion, witchcraft, or spankings isn't evidence of effectiveness, merely evidence that many people subscribe to some belief. Many people used to believe in Zeus. Now they believe in the Judeo-Christian god and Allah. Sillies, all of them, for belief sans evidence.
The fact that many people believe in ... spankings isn't evidence of effectiveness
No, the fact that millions of responsible, loving parents use it to successfully raise well-adjusted children into adulthood is evidence of its effectiveness, and of its non-abusive nature.
I don't claim that spanking is the only effective form of discipline. I do claim that when applied consistently, fairly, immediately and lovingly, it's not more harmful than other methods. Spanking is better than most ways of inflicting pain because it is short term; when done correctly, it doesn't cause any medium or long term damage such as broken bones or infection, and it does not affect a person's appearance.
The one time that I was spanked in elementary school (around 1985), it was a joke because the principal didn't hit me hard enough for it to hurt. That lesson ("don't call your teacher bad names") didn't stick until my parents disciplined me later.
Sillies, all of them, for belief sans evidence.
Why do you believe that it's silly to believe something without proof? Proof, please.
Pseudonym
at March 31, 2010 8:24 AM
the spanking thing would be billions perhaps more of parents, since that type of punishment has always existed, even before written history. It works particularly well if you almost never use it.
on the Objective Morality thing... Has to be relative to human beings, it is a human construction. All other living organisms follow the law of the jungle, and would be amoral. Objective... is a difficult term. What human being actually is?
SwissArmyD
at March 31, 2010 10:27 AM
Garbage - although the kind of garbage loved and repeated by Amy. Why am I not surprised this was served up at TED?
1) His exposition merely restates the obvious: morality operates upon facts. Science can help with those facts.
He totally fails to prove his obverse claim - that the facts are sufficient in themselves to generate or influence morality.
2) He then frames the entire discussion in the rationalist terms of maximizing human benefit - or satisfaction! This shallow approach leads directly to the kind of secular "morality of utility" that allowed the Nazis to gas the weak and infirm, and justified the killing fields of various progressive movements.
This approach is widespread - but it hasn't been a great success for humanity or for rationalists.
3) Not surprisingly, he then baits his audience with anti-Christian smears about caning in the schools.
It's VERY interesting to see a rationalist suddenly insist that there are moral absolutes - but he only does it in order to condemn those smelly Judeo-Christians. This notion is dropped immediately has he goes back to talking about "different peaks of satisfaction in the human landscape"....
Bullshit meter *clanging* by this point...
4) More sophomoric blather - helping an audience flatter itself that it's Thinking Deep Thoughts:
"The fact that there are many types of food doesn't mean there's no distinction between food and poison" - Wow! What an insight into morality.
"Not all moral rules are absolutes" - gee, ya think?
5) At least he has the balls to challenge conventional PC silence on radical Islam's oppression of women. Then he goes and ruins it by equating that barbarism with Western male chauvinism. No surprise that the turks at TED applaud.
Still no clear explanation of when we can assume our moral impulses are absolute, when they are relative/subject to arguments based on utility. Just a vague notion of PC self-righteousness.
6) Back to religion bashing - the straw man that religious teachings are arbitrary rather than a distillation of observation and wisdom, backed by human experience.
7) After framing the argument in terms of a range of notions of fulfillment/satisfaction, he then abruptly swerves into a totally unreasoned assertion of various PC pieties. Sounds like Al Gore talking about AGW - "correct" moral opinions are just obviously truer/better, no need to argue them.
He winds up this self-congratulatory stemwinder by claiming the mantle of moral expertise for the PC class represented by the TED audience. Where's the barf bag?
.... a jumble of ill-conceived ideas, none of which ever address the real limitations of rational, utalitarian bases for morality.
But "progressives" of a certain educational/economic class can come away feeling confirmed in their self-righteousness.
So he's given TED their money's worth...
Ben-David
at March 31, 2010 10:35 AM
I don't get how he earned the standing O at the end, myself. His sexy-big conclusion goes like this:
"This I think is what the world needs now: It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals and even for whole cultures to to care about the wrong things."
And I'm all, like, Duh. And then I went "Hell-loooooo" (with a teenage singsong pitch in my voice), "If I say something obvious like that, can I give a speech at TED too, and be put up in a nice hotel for a couple nights with full bar privileges, and maybe get hit on by Bryn Mawr grads who want to blow me when my 20 minutes are up?"
I mean, has the truth of what he's been saying ever not been clear to anyone?
Wanna know who agrees with him? George W. Bush! And Don Rumsfeld. And Karl Rove! (Grrrr! Karl Rove!)
I suspect his function on this planet is as a sort shepherding collie (are collies shepherds?), assigned the chore of leading ninnyfied, compassion-addled Lefties back into the land of the responsibly conscious. Useful work, I suppose, but not worth standing up to applaud.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at March 31, 2010 10:59 AM
Pseudonym: No, the fact that millions of responsible, loving parents use it to successfully raise well-adjusted children into adulthood is evidence of its effectiveness, and of its non-abusive nature.
That does not prove the effectiveness of spanking. That could just as easily prove that children can grow up well-adjusted in spite of having been spanked. Just as children can grow up well-adjusted in spite of having suffered other forms of abuse.
Patrick
at March 31, 2010 12:01 PM
Pseudonym: No, the fact that millions of responsible, loving parents use it to successfully raise well-adjusted children into adulthood is evidence of its effectiveness, and of its non-abusive nature.
That does not prove the effectiveness of spanking.
I agree, but it is evidence of it, which is why I said "evidence" not "proof". As you point out, it does prove that any negative effects of spanking do not necessarily outweigh other positive effects in a person's life. That non-abusive parents use it does prove that spanking is not abusive; if it were, then they would not be non-abusive parents.
Just as children can grow up well-adjusted in spite of having suffered other forms of abuse.
Spanking is not abuse. From childwelfare.gov: "The CAPTA definition of "child abuse and neglect," at a minimum, refers to:
"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm". Spanking, employed as I described earlier, does not meet that definition.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/31/sam_harris_scie.html#comment-1705732">comment from Pseudonym
My neighbors' children, 5 and 9, who the accountant we both use volunteered to me me are the best-raised children who come in there, are taught that it's not okay for people to hit other people. Their parents act accordingly: they do not hit each other or hit their children. They discipline their children through scolding or punishment, and explain why the kids have done wrong. These kids are also raised to be kind. All and all, it seems to work out very well.
er, Amy, don't want to split the semantic hairs, but will throw out an idea... spanking isn't like punching in the nose, or slapping in the face... it isn't hitting in that way. It is a very specific punishment reserved for only the worst situations. Essentially it is the threat it embodies. It is a painful lesson teacher on a part of the body that isn't easily damaged. My step father spanked me a total of once. He never had to again. I knew I'd get a couple of warning, and if I didn't shape up, that was the final option. It isn't needed for some kids, and other kids it simply won't work on. My kid sisters just never learned, would simply not comply. Eventually one got kicked out of the house. There was simply no reward and no punishment that would suffice.
This is a situation that you as a parent have to decide what doesn't work, and what you can move on to, it isn't quite as clear cut as: 'do this, it will always work.'
As for proof, I'd wager that like many other things that humans do, there is no mathmatical proof for this... There is no absolute. However, if it never worked, people wouldn't use it. Up until the 50's it was an excepted practice. My grandmother told me that all her mom had to do to make her "fly right" was to ask if she "needed to go cut a switch of the tree in the yard". She never ACTUALLY got switched. It was the threat and the knowledge of follow through. If a kid knows you won't follow through, they'll never stop.
Then everyone stated getting all touchy feely about how to raise kids. Some of it was great, and some of it led to kids who expect to be waited on, and have no idea what to do if they are on their own.
So, I would say that Pseudonym's evidence is a better way of looking at things than PROOF. It's like saying that kids who go to bed at a specific time are more constrained in their lives than kids that don't have any rules... They may trun out OK either way. Evidence for experience indicates that kids are LOOKING for a boundry, and if you don't provide them one, they will never stop pushing for one.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/31/sam_harris_scie.html#comment-1705752">comment from SwissArmyD
er, Amy, don't want to split the semantic hairs, but will throw out an idea... spanking isn't like punching in the nose, or slapping in the face... it isn't hitting in that way. It is a very specific punishment reserved for only the worst situations.
Like kids can parse that in a way that doesn't come up hypocrisy -- "hitting is not okay, except when Mommy hits you."
SwissArmyD: but will throw out an idea... spanking isn't like punching in the nose, or slapping in the face... it isn't hitting in that way.
Tell you what. You strike an adult as if you're spanking a child and you ask the police if they make any distinction between swatting an adult on the butt or smacking an adult in the face. Battery is battery, and if it's unwanted physical contact, it's battery.
Patrick
at March 31, 2010 2:17 PM
"Why do you believe that it's silly to believe something without proof? Proof, please."
For those of you who insist that a child should never be spanked:
How do you prepare them to be struck? Somebody or something is going to whack them, and it's not going be OK.
We already have big problems in the body of people who think there are no consequences for some things.
Radwaste
at March 31, 2010 3:14 PM
Radwaste: How do you prepare them to be struck? Somebody or something is going to whack them, and it's not going be OK.
Probable, but not inevitable. To answer your question, you teach them that hitting is not appropriate and how to respond should that situation arise.
Rad, you know I think you're great, but I have to tell you, the idea that we prepare our children for the possibility that someone is going to hit them by hitting them is ridiculous.
We also teach our children to stop, drop and roll should their clothes ever catch fire. Presumably we teach them this without actually setting them on fire.
By the same token, we can teach our children what to do if they're hit without actually hitting them.
Patrick
at March 31, 2010 3:36 PM
that's why it's called "spanking" and not "hitting"... interestingly, neither I nor any of the many families I know, no my children seem to have a problem telling the difference...
But that's why it's a semantic tangent... there is no "proof"
and PatricK, at what point is punishment of the nature a parent hands out, battery? Are you going to extend that to the parent causing the child mental distress by not giving them the candy when they throw a tantrum at the grocery store? It's a slippery slope when you start ot insist that the parent has no physical custody of the kid. That would presumably apply to the role of punishment. "Unwanted Physical Contact" has to have a narrow scope, because kids as a rule are under the care and custody of their parent. That parent is going to do a LOT of things that the child doesn't want them to.
Are you saying that only spanking should fall outside this narrow scope? And are you going to make it illegal?
Another adult is not under your custody as a child is, because that adult makes their own decisions. The child doesn't get to, because they don't have agency for that. They cannot make the decisions.
The flip side of the coin is that you don't put the 5 year old in jail becuase he was playing with matches in the garage, and burnt it down. They get spanked and sent to bed without dinner.
Dunno, Amy, you want good kids, but not everyone is a darling... if you don't set real limits, some of them keep pushing till you do. Others never learn, regardless. Until it's life that beats them down later. My one hades on wheels sister? Is learning that the payback for being that to my mom, is that her own daughter is far worse. :shrug:
This whole human thing is a messy business.
SwissArmyD
at March 31, 2010 4:06 PM
Hey everyone, childless Patrick has views on how the rest of us should raise kids! Really specific ones! Listen up!
momof4
at March 31, 2010 4:42 PM
Or, kids can learn that hitting is not okay, AND that they'll be spanked for some things. Just like adults know murder is not okay, but that we will kill them (capitol punishment) if they behave badly enough. Life is not black and white, and even kids get that. Otherwise, they'd never lift a hand in self-defense because "hitting is wrong".
There are some things I'd want my kids to haul off and clock another human for. Running to the teacher is not always the best action. A fact I wish some big-daddy-gov't-loving people would learn! Maybe they should have been spanked as kids....
momof4
at March 31, 2010 4:47 PM
On spanking, see Judith Rich Harris.
Asian families spank. Their kids are super achievers. Black parents spank. Their kids are not super achievers, on average.
White families don't spank (relatively speaking). Their kids to pretty well, somewhere in between Asians and blacks.
Also, any study has to take into account child-to-parent effects. A kid with genes for being a mischievous, annoying trouble-maker is more likely to get spanked. He's also more likely to be an adult screw up. But his genes may have caused both.
She concludes there is no evidence suggesting reasonable spanking screws up kids at all.
D
at March 31, 2010 8:54 PM
Like kids can parse that in a way that doesn't come up hypocrisy -- "hitting is not okay, except when Mommy hits you."
Kids know all about the concept of authority, and that the rules are different for people in different roles.
Pseudonym
at March 31, 2010 9:08 PM
"Kids know all about the concept of authority, and that the rules are different for people in different roles."
This is another theme that runs through Harris' book "The Nurture Assumption". Kids are far more sensitive to context than people think. That is, they learn quickly things like, "Push around the little kid at school; don't mess with big brother or you will pay." They get distinctions. I'd imagine they get the "some things are okay for adults but not so good for kids" rule. Mommy can smoke and drink alcohol. I can't. I'm 7. I can't.
D
at March 31, 2010 9:31 PM
"Like kids can parse that in a way that doesn't come up hypocrisy -- "hitting is not okay, except when Mommy hits you."
Thank you!!!!
Feebie
at March 31, 2010 9:34 PM
"Kids are far more sensitive to context than people think. "
This is entirely subjective. Context is learned, instincts are inherent. You are assuming that the "Mommy" who smokes and drinks alcohol has the parental skills to provide her child life lessons within the proper context. If "Mommy" is a large child who places smoking and drinking alcohol above parenting...
The only time violence is warranted is in self-defense, and THAT is something, unless it is beaten out of a kid by an abusive parent - they will instinctively know the context of - it's the way we are hardwired.
When a parent hits a child; the child is put in a position where they cannot hit back - please tell me (Rad) how that prepares them for self defense. It has the opposite effect for many and for others it is used as a means for control and getting what they want ("Mommy gets me to behave by hitting me so therefore....").
Kids will grow up to be either a bully or a punching bag if the proper "context" is never realized.
And even if the context is given, its pretty risky. I believe using spanking as a means of discipline is lazy parenting. If a small child who is not yet talking tries to stick there finger in a light socket - that is one thing. To use it as a means of behavior modification is quite another.
Feebie
at March 31, 2010 9:51 PM
"You are assuming that the "Mommy" who smokes and drinks alcohol has the parental skills to provide her child life lessons within the proper context."
The comment I was responding to (context, you know) ASSUMED that there isn't a way for it not to come across as "hypocrisy". In other words, the comment assumed that even if the "mommy has the parental skills to provide her child life lessons within the proper context", it still wouldn't matter.
D
at March 31, 2010 10:04 PM
"Like kids can parse that in a way that doesn't come up hypocrisy -- "hitting is not okay, except when Mommy hits you."
Feebie, this is the comment that assumes the kids wouldn't "get it" no matter what.
D
at March 31, 2010 10:08 PM
6) Back to religion bashing - the straw man that religious teachings are arbitrary rather than a distillation of observation and wisdom, backed by human experience - Ben David
Ok Ben regale us with the distilled observation and wisdom of animal sacrifice, or the scape goating ritual.
Or marrige via rape?
lujlp
at March 31, 2010 10:45 PM
D-
The parental figure in Amy's scenario is hypocritical because they are teaching the child to respect authority by means of fear/abuse, and not out of respect. (You respect me but I don't respect you - hypocritical). So no, they won't "get it".
They can "get" the concept or context of authority/laws (adults get to do things kids can't) in a non-hypocritical way if the delivery of the lesson comes from a place of respect (and in turn will make distinctions of context accordingly).
If they learn this context out of fear, then their distinctions will be hypocritical because they will come from a place of fear and not respect (even if their actions are respectful):
"Push around the little kid at school; don't mess with big brother or you will pay." Hypocritical.
Whereas if they understand the context from a position of respect, there is no hypocrisy:
...Don't push around the little kid at school because I wouldn't want that done to me.
THIS is the lesson that giving kids a swat or teaching them lessons through pain and fear miss entirely.
Feebie
at March 31, 2010 10:54 PM
SwissArmyD: It's a slippery slope when you start ot insist that the parent has no physical custody of the kid.
Not really. The Army never had problems with that. The upper enlisted were not allowed to lay hands on the lower enlisted unless they were physically assisting them to perform a task.
Despite what you might think you know about the military from movies like "Full Metal Jacket," when I was in, the sergeants didn't seem to have much problem with that. A few exceptions, yes, but they generally had their attitudes adjusted.
Momof4: Hey everyone, childless Patrick has views on how the rest of us should raise kids! Really specific ones! Listen up!
Oh, give it a rest, you self-righteous harpy. I am allowed to weigh in on the subject, regardless of how threatened that makes you.
And yes, having children does not make you an expert. There are plenty of mothers out there who are pieces of shit and should be in prison for the way they treat their kids...and some of them, thankfully, are.
Or did you think Susan Smith was a good mother, who lovingly drowned her two beautiful boys?
If having children does not make you an automatic expert on parenting, then not having them doesn't mean your opinion counts for nothing.
If you don't like it, no one's got a gun to your head and is forcing you to read my posts.
Patrick
at April 1, 2010 1:56 AM
What happened to all the libertarians here?
Spanking is not demonstrably, reliably damaging to children.
So it should be a private decision.
The original lecturer was talking about corporal punishment in a school setting. A much more thorny issue.
Ben-David
at April 1, 2010 5:38 AM
OK, here's another good occasion to quote Rosemond.
That is, he's not opposed to spanking, per se. IIRC, he said that he believes in it as a first resort - but not as a last resort. Also, he said, if you strike more than twice in the same spanking, it isn't a spanking - it's a beating.
HOWEVER, he has plenty of faith in those parents who raise their kids without EVER spanking them - IF they're willing to stick to his adage: "The only punishment that fits the crime is the one that stops the bad behavior from recurring." I.e., don't be afraid to go overboard with a punishment if it WORKS; chances are that, as a result, you'll never have to do it again! (I do hope, though, that he wouldn't support those parents who really do go overboard, such as the parents who grounded a teen for six months.....because she was alone, with orders not to have any boys over - when a male friend unexpectedly dropped by to return a book, and in her panic, she tried to cover up his visit and failed!)
To see his exact advice on the general matter, go here:
http : / / tinyurl . com / ygdqd9p
Only pages 59-60 are truly important, but you can go further, of course. (The link takes you to 59.)
Or for some REALLY juicy stories of successful discipline (again, no spanking):
http : / / tinyurl . com / y8te2f2
This goes to page 192. It's best to start at 190 and read through 196.
lenona
at April 1, 2010 8:28 AM
"D-
The parental figure in Amy's scenario is hypocritical because they are teaching the child to respect authority by means of fear/abuse, and not out of respect. (You respect me but I don't respect you - hypocritical). So no, they won't "get it". "
I think you are confused because you think ALL the same standards apply to kids that apply to adults (some do, obviously; but some don't, obviously). This is a very weird idea. Almost all kids know it's not true. They "get it". Most adults get it, but I'm fairly sure adults not getting it is a fairly new thing. The simplest wat to "get it" is to understand that the relationship is hierarchical. They are not equals. Thinking they are is but one reason why we have a generation of narcissistic kids. And treating them as children, which might entail spanking them in extreme cases, doesn't necessarily mean they aren't being "respected" or loved. When you yell at them, is this you merely "disrespecting" them? What about grounding them?
Weirdness across the board.
P.S. I'm not pro-spanking at all. I'm just familiar with the research that shows it doesn't really damage kids (please read Harris). And I disagree that kids will make a hypocrisy inference anytime they see and parent-to-child standard that differs from a peer-to-peer standard.
d
at April 1, 2010 9:08 AM
D- you're right, especially about "respect." That is, many people don't understand that there are FOUR types of respect, which overlap much of the time, but they don't have to. Namely, in order, grudging acceptance (as to someone in the community whose politics you loathe), common courtesy, deference (as to a superior) and admiration.
Miss Manners understands this well, and she says that, regarding the need for kids to respect their parents, she would prefer people to use the expression "TREAT your parents with respect."
Here's why:
Wednesday, July 2, 2008; Page C07
Dear Miss Manners:
A group of friends and I are having a discussion regarding good manners and respect. My view is that respect comes from understanding and having good manners, whereas it is being put to me that good manners and respect are two distinctly separate things that can be had one without the other. We would be very interested in learning your thoughts on the matter, and I would consider them to be the final word on the subject.
Gentle Reader: Promising Miss Manners that her word will be the final one, even before you have heard it -- now, that is respect. She thanks you.
Yet she admits that the term "respect" is rather loosely used in the manners business. This leads to the sort of argument in which a parent says, "You have to show more respect for Granny," and the child replies, "Why, since she just got out of jail for petty larceny?"
The sort of respect to which the parent is referring is a part of good manners. It means exhibiting consideration toward everyone and showing special deference to those who are older or in a position of authority.
But the child hears the word to mean the genuine admiration felt for someone who has proved himself to be worthy of it. That sort of respect is, indeed, a thing apart, which etiquette cannot mandate.
Manners require only that people show respect, although with the secret hope that the outward form will become internalized. What people feel as they size up individuals is up to them.
(end)
So, one might say: "Courtesy is your right; admiration is what you earn."
However, "common courtesy towards adults," when you're a child, clearly mandates deference, though not admiration.
lenona
at April 1, 2010 9:34 AM
I just think it's laughable that Momof4, of all people, would imply that only the opinions of people who have children should have any merit on the subject.
Like she defers to me when the subject of homosexuality and issues like gay marriage come up. If she applied her own standard to herself, she'd never say a word on the subject, but as any regular blog poster here knows, that's definitely not the case. A recent example would be the account of Christina McMillen, a high school senior and open lesbian since the eighth grade, who wanted to take a same sex date to the prom.
Momof4 harrumphed herself into a lather because she insisted that McMilla
n was doing it only for attention, although subsequently revealed facts uncovered that the school explicitly stated on their prom announcement that all couples had to have opposite sex dates, and were advised by the school that she and her girlfriend would be kicked out of the prom if so much as one person complained.
Do you hear this? McMillan was told directly that she couldn't take the date of her choice, moreover that any student could exercise veto power to have her kicked out of the prom, but this is all her fault and she's just doing it for attention!
Oh, yes. We must all listen with rapt attention when Momof4 thunders her indignation on gay issues, despite the fact that she isn't gay and probably doesn't have a whole lot of contact with gays, given her attitudes towards them, but unless you have kids, don't you dare say one word on the subject of parenting...everrrrrr! Or else Momof4 Dearest will let you have it!
Hypocrite.
Patrick
at April 1, 2010 9:44 AM
er, Patrick... last I checked, nobody in the armed forces is 3 or 4 or 5 years old. Children are NOT small adults. There brains are still developing quite a bit, and that makes a lot of difference in impulse control, and what makes that impulse control possible...
Beyond that, I'd guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If and when you have kids, you will have to make up your OWN mind about what works.
I'm still waiting on BenDavids explination on the distilled wisdom gained over the centuries that led to heaping "sins" on to a goat and sending it into the desert to die.
lujlp
at April 1, 2010 3:23 PM
Swiss Army D: er, Patrick... last I checked, nobody in the armed forces is 3 or 4 or 5 years old. Children are NOT small adults. There brains are still developing quite a bit, and that makes a lot of difference in impulse control, and what makes that impulse control possible...
Er, Swiss Army D, way to miss the point...or at least pretend to. You equated not spanking to "no physical custody of the kid."
He raises valid points, but it got more interesting when he was questioned (beginning around 18:50).
The problem I have is that he seems to take "human flourishing" as the basis for determining "objective morality."
Is it? What happens when human flourishing encroaches on the rights of other species to enjoy the space they find themselves placed in, which it already has? And for that matter, why restrict this question to members of the animal kingdom only?
Patrick at March 31, 2010 3:43 AM
By the way, he used the expression, "patently obvious." What's his email address? I want to ask him if where it would fall under his concept of "objective morality" to STONE THE MOTHERFUCKERS WHO USE REDUNDANT EXPRESSIONS!
Patrick at March 31, 2010 3:48 AM
Science requires more than factual claims; it also requires the ability to test those claims. One of the claims that Harris makes is that the well-being of humans is desirable. I agree with him, for religious reasons, but he does not establish how science can test the moral validity of that claim. There are plausible explanations for why humans desire the well-being of humans, but there is no way that I am aware of to scientifically demonstrate that that claim is an absolute moral truth.
Harris claims that use of corporal punishment is motivated by religion, and not by anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. I disagree; if it didn't work, it wouldn't be used by millions of responsible, loving parents to successfully raise well-adjusted children into adulthood.
I agree with what Harris says in opposition to relative morality. The Dalai Lama and Ted Bundy do not have equally valid worldviews.
Whenever someone says "we cannot tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being" they usually disagree with me about what constitutes "vast" and I expect an imminent attempt to force a minor difference on me. As someone else said, what he describes is fulfilled by the Catholic Church of the middle ages, when dissent was not tolerated.
His conclusion: "We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life." Why? I agree that it would be nice if more people agreed with me, but I most won't, and in fact, tolerance of dissent makes it more likely that truth will be discovered.
Pseudonym at March 31, 2010 7:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/31/sam_harris_scie.html#comment-1705669">comment from Pseudonymwouldn't be used by millions
The fact that many people believe in religion, witchcraft, or spankings isn't evidence of effectiveness, merely evidence that many people subscribe to some belief. Many people used to believe in Zeus. Now they believe in the Judeo-Christian god and Allah. Sillies, all of them, for belief sans evidence.
Amy Alkon at March 31, 2010 8:01 AM
No, the fact that millions of responsible, loving parents use it to successfully raise well-adjusted children into adulthood is evidence of its effectiveness, and of its non-abusive nature.
I don't claim that spanking is the only effective form of discipline. I do claim that when applied consistently, fairly, immediately and lovingly, it's not more harmful than other methods. Spanking is better than most ways of inflicting pain because it is short term; when done correctly, it doesn't cause any medium or long term damage such as broken bones or infection, and it does not affect a person's appearance.
The one time that I was spanked in elementary school (around 1985), it was a joke because the principal didn't hit me hard enough for it to hurt. That lesson ("don't call your teacher bad names") didn't stick until my parents disciplined me later.
Why do you believe that it's silly to believe something without proof? Proof, please.
Pseudonym at March 31, 2010 8:24 AM
the spanking thing would be billions perhaps more of parents, since that type of punishment has always existed, even before written history. It works particularly well if you almost never use it.
on the Objective Morality thing... Has to be relative to human beings, it is a human construction. All other living organisms follow the law of the jungle, and would be amoral. Objective... is a difficult term. What human being actually is?
SwissArmyD at March 31, 2010 10:27 AM
Garbage - although the kind of garbage loved and repeated by Amy. Why am I not surprised this was served up at TED?
1) His exposition merely restates the obvious: morality operates upon facts. Science can help with those facts.
He totally fails to prove his obverse claim - that the facts are sufficient in themselves to generate or influence morality.
2) He then frames the entire discussion in the rationalist terms of maximizing human benefit - or satisfaction! This shallow approach leads directly to the kind of secular "morality of utility" that allowed the Nazis to gas the weak and infirm, and justified the killing fields of various progressive movements.
This approach is widespread - but it hasn't been a great success for humanity or for rationalists.
3) Not surprisingly, he then baits his audience with anti-Christian smears about caning in the schools.
It's VERY interesting to see a rationalist suddenly insist that there are moral absolutes - but he only does it in order to condemn those smelly Judeo-Christians. This notion is dropped immediately has he goes back to talking about "different peaks of satisfaction in the human landscape"....
Bullshit meter *clanging* by this point...
4) More sophomoric blather - helping an audience flatter itself that it's Thinking Deep Thoughts:
"The fact that there are many types of food doesn't mean there's no distinction between food and poison" - Wow! What an insight into morality.
"Not all moral rules are absolutes" - gee, ya think?
5) At least he has the balls to challenge conventional PC silence on radical Islam's oppression of women. Then he goes and ruins it by equating that barbarism with Western male chauvinism. No surprise that the turks at TED applaud.
Still no clear explanation of when we can assume our moral impulses are absolute, when they are relative/subject to arguments based on utility. Just a vague notion of PC self-righteousness.
6) Back to religion bashing - the straw man that religious teachings are arbitrary rather than a distillation of observation and wisdom, backed by human experience.
7) After framing the argument in terms of a range of notions of fulfillment/satisfaction, he then abruptly swerves into a totally unreasoned assertion of various PC pieties. Sounds like Al Gore talking about AGW - "correct" moral opinions are just obviously truer/better, no need to argue them.
He winds up this self-congratulatory stemwinder by claiming the mantle of moral expertise for the PC class represented by the TED audience. Where's the barf bag?
.... a jumble of ill-conceived ideas, none of which ever address the real limitations of rational, utalitarian bases for morality.
But "progressives" of a certain educational/economic class can come away feeling confirmed in their self-righteousness.
So he's given TED their money's worth...
Ben-David at March 31, 2010 10:35 AM
I don't get how he earned the standing O at the end, myself. His sexy-big conclusion goes like this:
"This I think is what the world needs now: It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals and even for whole cultures to to care about the wrong things."
And I'm all, like, Duh. And then I went "Hell-loooooo" (with a teenage singsong pitch in my voice), "If I say something obvious like that, can I give a speech at TED too, and be put up in a nice hotel for a couple nights with full bar privileges, and maybe get hit on by Bryn Mawr grads who want to blow me when my 20 minutes are up?"
I mean, has the truth of what he's been saying ever not been clear to anyone?
Wanna know who agrees with him? George W. Bush! And Don Rumsfeld. And Karl Rove! (Grrrr! Karl Rove!)
I suspect his function on this planet is as a sort shepherding collie (are collies shepherds?), assigned the chore of leading ninnyfied, compassion-addled Lefties back into the land of the responsibly conscious. Useful work, I suppose, but not worth standing up to applaud.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 31, 2010 10:59 AM
That does not prove the effectiveness of spanking. That could just as easily prove that children can grow up well-adjusted in spite of having been spanked. Just as children can grow up well-adjusted in spite of having suffered other forms of abuse.
Patrick at March 31, 2010 12:01 PM
I agree, but it is evidence of it, which is why I said "evidence" not "proof". As you point out, it does prove that any negative effects of spanking do not necessarily outweigh other positive effects in a person's life. That non-abusive parents use it does prove that spanking is not abusive; if it were, then they would not be non-abusive parents.
Spanking is not abuse. From childwelfare.gov: "The CAPTA definition of "child abuse and neglect," at a minimum, refers to:
"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm". Spanking, employed as I described earlier, does not meet that definition.
Pseudonym at March 31, 2010 12:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/31/sam_harris_scie.html#comment-1705732">comment from PseudonymMy neighbors' children, 5 and 9, who the accountant we both use volunteered to me me are the best-raised children who come in there, are taught that it's not okay for people to hit other people. Their parents act accordingly: they do not hit each other or hit their children. They discipline their children through scolding or punishment, and explain why the kids have done wrong. These kids are also raised to be kind. All and all, it seems to work out very well.
Amy Alkon at March 31, 2010 1:05 PM
er, Amy, don't want to split the semantic hairs, but will throw out an idea... spanking isn't like punching in the nose, or slapping in the face... it isn't hitting in that way. It is a very specific punishment reserved for only the worst situations. Essentially it is the threat it embodies. It is a painful lesson teacher on a part of the body that isn't easily damaged. My step father spanked me a total of once. He never had to again. I knew I'd get a couple of warning, and if I didn't shape up, that was the final option. It isn't needed for some kids, and other kids it simply won't work on. My kid sisters just never learned, would simply not comply. Eventually one got kicked out of the house. There was simply no reward and no punishment that would suffice.
This is a situation that you as a parent have to decide what doesn't work, and what you can move on to, it isn't quite as clear cut as: 'do this, it will always work.'
As for proof, I'd wager that like many other things that humans do, there is no mathmatical proof for this... There is no absolute. However, if it never worked, people wouldn't use it. Up until the 50's it was an excepted practice. My grandmother told me that all her mom had to do to make her "fly right" was to ask if she "needed to go cut a switch of the tree in the yard". She never ACTUALLY got switched. It was the threat and the knowledge of follow through. If a kid knows you won't follow through, they'll never stop.
Then everyone stated getting all touchy feely about how to raise kids. Some of it was great, and some of it led to kids who expect to be waited on, and have no idea what to do if they are on their own.
So, I would say that Pseudonym's evidence is a better way of looking at things than PROOF. It's like saying that kids who go to bed at a specific time are more constrained in their lives than kids that don't have any rules... They may trun out OK either way. Evidence for experience indicates that kids are LOOKING for a boundry, and if you don't provide them one, they will never stop pushing for one.
/tangent.
SwissArmyD at March 31, 2010 1:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/31/sam_harris_scie.html#comment-1705752">comment from SwissArmyDer, Amy, don't want to split the semantic hairs, but will throw out an idea... spanking isn't like punching in the nose, or slapping in the face... it isn't hitting in that way. It is a very specific punishment reserved for only the worst situations.
Like kids can parse that in a way that doesn't come up hypocrisy -- "hitting is not okay, except when Mommy hits you."
Amy Alkon at March 31, 2010 2:14 PM
SwissArmyD: but will throw out an idea... spanking isn't like punching in the nose, or slapping in the face... it isn't hitting in that way.
Tell you what. You strike an adult as if you're spanking a child and you ask the police if they make any distinction between swatting an adult on the butt or smacking an adult in the face. Battery is battery, and if it's unwanted physical contact, it's battery.
Patrick at March 31, 2010 2:17 PM
"Why do you believe that it's silly to believe something without proof? Proof, please."
Okay. Here you go.
Wait - that's not silly. It's tragic.
-----
For those of you who insist that a child should never be spanked:
How do you prepare them to be struck? Somebody or something is going to whack them, and it's not going be OK.
We already have big problems in the body of people who think there are no consequences for some things.
Radwaste at March 31, 2010 3:14 PM
Probable, but not inevitable. To answer your question, you teach them that hitting is not appropriate and how to respond should that situation arise.
Rad, you know I think you're great, but I have to tell you, the idea that we prepare our children for the possibility that someone is going to hit them by hitting them is ridiculous.
We also teach our children to stop, drop and roll should their clothes ever catch fire. Presumably we teach them this without actually setting them on fire.
By the same token, we can teach our children what to do if they're hit without actually hitting them.
Patrick at March 31, 2010 3:36 PM
that's why it's called "spanking" and not "hitting"... interestingly, neither I nor any of the many families I know, no my children seem to have a problem telling the difference...
But that's why it's a semantic tangent... there is no "proof"
and PatricK, at what point is punishment of the nature a parent hands out, battery? Are you going to extend that to the parent causing the child mental distress by not giving them the candy when they throw a tantrum at the grocery store? It's a slippery slope when you start ot insist that the parent has no physical custody of the kid. That would presumably apply to the role of punishment. "Unwanted Physical Contact" has to have a narrow scope, because kids as a rule are under the care and custody of their parent. That parent is going to do a LOT of things that the child doesn't want them to.
Are you saying that only spanking should fall outside this narrow scope? And are you going to make it illegal?
Another adult is not under your custody as a child is, because that adult makes their own decisions. The child doesn't get to, because they don't have agency for that. They cannot make the decisions.
The flip side of the coin is that you don't put the 5 year old in jail becuase he was playing with matches in the garage, and burnt it down. They get spanked and sent to bed without dinner.
Dunno, Amy, you want good kids, but not everyone is a darling... if you don't set real limits, some of them keep pushing till you do. Others never learn, regardless. Until it's life that beats them down later. My one hades on wheels sister? Is learning that the payback for being that to my mom, is that her own daughter is far worse. :shrug:
This whole human thing is a messy business.
SwissArmyD at March 31, 2010 4:06 PM
Hey everyone, childless Patrick has views on how the rest of us should raise kids! Really specific ones! Listen up!
momof4 at March 31, 2010 4:42 PM
Or, kids can learn that hitting is not okay, AND that they'll be spanked for some things. Just like adults know murder is not okay, but that we will kill them (capitol punishment) if they behave badly enough. Life is not black and white, and even kids get that. Otherwise, they'd never lift a hand in self-defense because "hitting is wrong".
There are some things I'd want my kids to haul off and clock another human for. Running to the teacher is not always the best action. A fact I wish some big-daddy-gov't-loving people would learn! Maybe they should have been spanked as kids....
momof4 at March 31, 2010 4:47 PM
On spanking, see Judith Rich Harris.
Asian families spank. Their kids are super achievers. Black parents spank. Their kids are not super achievers, on average.
White families don't spank (relatively speaking). Their kids to pretty well, somewhere in between Asians and blacks.
Also, any study has to take into account child-to-parent effects. A kid with genes for being a mischievous, annoying trouble-maker is more likely to get spanked. He's also more likely to be an adult screw up. But his genes may have caused both.
She concludes there is no evidence suggesting reasonable spanking screws up kids at all.
D at March 31, 2010 8:54 PM
Kids know all about the concept of authority, and that the rules are different for people in different roles.
Pseudonym at March 31, 2010 9:08 PM
"Kids know all about the concept of authority, and that the rules are different for people in different roles."
This is another theme that runs through Harris' book "The Nurture Assumption". Kids are far more sensitive to context than people think. That is, they learn quickly things like, "Push around the little kid at school; don't mess with big brother or you will pay." They get distinctions. I'd imagine they get the "some things are okay for adults but not so good for kids" rule. Mommy can smoke and drink alcohol. I can't. I'm 7. I can't.
D at March 31, 2010 9:31 PM
"Like kids can parse that in a way that doesn't come up hypocrisy -- "hitting is not okay, except when Mommy hits you."
Thank you!!!!
Feebie at March 31, 2010 9:34 PM
"Kids are far more sensitive to context than people think. "
This is entirely subjective. Context is learned, instincts are inherent. You are assuming that the "Mommy" who smokes and drinks alcohol has the parental skills to provide her child life lessons within the proper context. If "Mommy" is a large child who places smoking and drinking alcohol above parenting...
The only time violence is warranted is in self-defense, and THAT is something, unless it is beaten out of a kid by an abusive parent - they will instinctively know the context of - it's the way we are hardwired.
When a parent hits a child; the child is put in a position where they cannot hit back - please tell me (Rad) how that prepares them for self defense. It has the opposite effect for many and for others it is used as a means for control and getting what they want ("Mommy gets me to behave by hitting me so therefore....").
Kids will grow up to be either a bully or a punching bag if the proper "context" is never realized.
And even if the context is given, its pretty risky. I believe using spanking as a means of discipline is lazy parenting. If a small child who is not yet talking tries to stick there finger in a light socket - that is one thing. To use it as a means of behavior modification is quite another.
Feebie at March 31, 2010 9:51 PM
"You are assuming that the "Mommy" who smokes and drinks alcohol has the parental skills to provide her child life lessons within the proper context."
The comment I was responding to (context, you know) ASSUMED that there isn't a way for it not to come across as "hypocrisy". In other words, the comment assumed that even if the "mommy has the parental skills to provide her child life lessons within the proper context", it still wouldn't matter.
D at March 31, 2010 10:04 PM
"Like kids can parse that in a way that doesn't come up hypocrisy -- "hitting is not okay, except when Mommy hits you."
Feebie, this is the comment that assumes the kids wouldn't "get it" no matter what.
D at March 31, 2010 10:08 PM
6) Back to religion bashing - the straw man that religious teachings are arbitrary rather than a distillation of observation and wisdom, backed by human experience - Ben David
Ok Ben regale us with the distilled observation and wisdom of animal sacrifice, or the scape goating ritual.
Or marrige via rape?
lujlp at March 31, 2010 10:45 PM
D-
The parental figure in Amy's scenario is hypocritical because they are teaching the child to respect authority by means of fear/abuse, and not out of respect. (You respect me but I don't respect you - hypocritical). So no, they won't "get it".
They can "get" the concept or context of authority/laws (adults get to do things kids can't) in a non-hypocritical way if the delivery of the lesson comes from a place of respect (and in turn will make distinctions of context accordingly).
If they learn this context out of fear, then their distinctions will be hypocritical because they will come from a place of fear and not respect (even if their actions are respectful):
"Push around the little kid at school; don't mess with big brother or you will pay." Hypocritical.
Whereas if they understand the context from a position of respect, there is no hypocrisy:
...Don't push around the little kid at school because I wouldn't want that done to me.
THIS is the lesson that giving kids a swat or teaching them lessons through pain and fear miss entirely.
Feebie at March 31, 2010 10:54 PM
Not really. The Army never had problems with that. The upper enlisted were not allowed to lay hands on the lower enlisted unless they were physically assisting them to perform a task.
Despite what you might think you know about the military from movies like "Full Metal Jacket," when I was in, the sergeants didn't seem to have much problem with that. A few exceptions, yes, but they generally had their attitudes adjusted.
Oh, give it a rest, you self-righteous harpy. I am allowed to weigh in on the subject, regardless of how threatened that makes you.
And yes, having children does not make you an expert. There are plenty of mothers out there who are pieces of shit and should be in prison for the way they treat their kids...and some of them, thankfully, are.
Or did you think Susan Smith was a good mother, who lovingly drowned her two beautiful boys?
If having children does not make you an automatic expert on parenting, then not having them doesn't mean your opinion counts for nothing.
If you don't like it, no one's got a gun to your head and is forcing you to read my posts.
Patrick at April 1, 2010 1:56 AM
What happened to all the libertarians here?
Spanking is not demonstrably, reliably damaging to children.
So it should be a private decision.
The original lecturer was talking about corporal punishment in a school setting. A much more thorny issue.
Ben-David at April 1, 2010 5:38 AM
OK, here's another good occasion to quote Rosemond.
That is, he's not opposed to spanking, per se. IIRC, he said that he believes in it as a first resort - but not as a last resort. Also, he said, if you strike more than twice in the same spanking, it isn't a spanking - it's a beating.
HOWEVER, he has plenty of faith in those parents who raise their kids without EVER spanking them - IF they're willing to stick to his adage: "The only punishment that fits the crime is the one that stops the bad behavior from recurring." I.e., don't be afraid to go overboard with a punishment if it WORKS; chances are that, as a result, you'll never have to do it again! (I do hope, though, that he wouldn't support those parents who really do go overboard, such as the parents who grounded a teen for six months.....because she was alone, with orders not to have any boys over - when a male friend unexpectedly dropped by to return a book, and in her panic, she tried to cover up his visit and failed!)
To see his exact advice on the general matter, go here:
http : / / tinyurl . com / ygdqd9p
Only pages 59-60 are truly important, but you can go further, of course. (The link takes you to 59.)
Or for some REALLY juicy stories of successful discipline (again, no spanking):
http : / / tinyurl . com / y8te2f2
This goes to page 192. It's best to start at 190 and read through 196.
lenona at April 1, 2010 8:28 AM
"D-
The parental figure in Amy's scenario is hypocritical because they are teaching the child to respect authority by means of fear/abuse, and not out of respect. (You respect me but I don't respect you - hypocritical). So no, they won't "get it". "
I think you are confused because you think ALL the same standards apply to kids that apply to adults (some do, obviously; but some don't, obviously). This is a very weird idea. Almost all kids know it's not true. They "get it". Most adults get it, but I'm fairly sure adults not getting it is a fairly new thing. The simplest wat to "get it" is to understand that the relationship is hierarchical. They are not equals. Thinking they are is but one reason why we have a generation of narcissistic kids. And treating them as children, which might entail spanking them in extreme cases, doesn't necessarily mean they aren't being "respected" or loved. When you yell at them, is this you merely "disrespecting" them? What about grounding them?
Weirdness across the board.
P.S. I'm not pro-spanking at all. I'm just familiar with the research that shows it doesn't really damage kids (please read Harris). And I disagree that kids will make a hypocrisy inference anytime they see and parent-to-child standard that differs from a peer-to-peer standard.
d at April 1, 2010 9:08 AM
D- you're right, especially about "respect." That is, many people don't understand that there are FOUR types of respect, which overlap much of the time, but they don't have to. Namely, in order, grudging acceptance (as to someone in the community whose politics you loathe), common courtesy, deference (as to a superior) and admiration.
Miss Manners understands this well, and she says that, regarding the need for kids to respect their parents, she would prefer people to use the expression "TREAT your parents with respect."
Here's why:
Wednesday, July 2, 2008; Page C07
Dear Miss Manners:
A group of friends and I are having a discussion regarding good manners and respect. My view is that respect comes from understanding and having good manners, whereas it is being put to me that good manners and respect are two distinctly separate things that can be had one without the other. We would be very interested in learning your thoughts on the matter, and I would consider them to be the final word on the subject.
Gentle Reader: Promising Miss Manners that her word will be the final one, even before you have heard it -- now, that is respect. She thanks you.
Yet she admits that the term "respect" is rather loosely used in the manners business. This leads to the sort of argument in which a parent says, "You have to show more respect for Granny," and the child replies, "Why, since she just got out of jail for petty larceny?"
The sort of respect to which the parent is referring is a part of good manners. It means exhibiting consideration toward everyone and showing special deference to those who are older or in a position of authority.
But the child hears the word to mean the genuine admiration felt for someone who has proved himself to be worthy of it. That sort of respect is, indeed, a thing apart, which etiquette cannot mandate.
Manners require only that people show respect, although with the secret hope that the outward form will become internalized. What people feel as they size up individuals is up to them.
(end)
So, one might say: "Courtesy is your right; admiration is what you earn."
However, "common courtesy towards adults," when you're a child, clearly mandates deference, though not admiration.
lenona at April 1, 2010 9:34 AM
I just think it's laughable that Momof4, of all people, would imply that only the opinions of people who have children should have any merit on the subject.
Like she defers to me when the subject of homosexuality and issues like gay marriage come up. If she applied her own standard to herself, she'd never say a word on the subject, but as any regular blog poster here knows, that's definitely not the case. A recent example would be the account of Christina McMillen, a high school senior and open lesbian since the eighth grade, who wanted to take a same sex date to the prom.
Momof4 harrumphed herself into a lather because she insisted that McMilla
n was doing it only for attention, although subsequently revealed facts uncovered that the school explicitly stated on their prom announcement that all couples had to have opposite sex dates, and were advised by the school that she and her girlfriend would be kicked out of the prom if so much as one person complained.
Do you hear this? McMillan was told directly that she couldn't take the date of her choice, moreover that any student could exercise veto power to have her kicked out of the prom, but this is all her fault and she's just doing it for attention!
Oh, yes. We must all listen with rapt attention when Momof4 thunders her indignation on gay issues, despite the fact that she isn't gay and probably doesn't have a whole lot of contact with gays, given her attitudes towards them, but unless you have kids, don't you dare say one word on the subject of parenting...everrrrrr! Or else Momof4 Dearest will let you have it!
Hypocrite.
Patrick at April 1, 2010 9:44 AM
er, Patrick... last I checked, nobody in the armed forces is 3 or 4 or 5 years old. Children are NOT small adults. There brains are still developing quite a bit, and that makes a lot of difference in impulse control, and what makes that impulse control possible...
Beyond that, I'd guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If and when you have kids, you will have to make up your OWN mind about what works.
SwissArmyD at April 1, 2010 11:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/31/sam_harris_scie.html#comment-1705902">comment from lenonaIslamic societies spare the hypocrisy by spanking everyone:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e48dcd2d7eded7c7afce6bcae05990d1.671&show_article=1
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2010 11:35 AM
I'm still waiting on BenDavids explination on the distilled wisdom gained over the centuries that led to heaping "sins" on to a goat and sending it into the desert to die.
lujlp at April 1, 2010 3:23 PM
Er, Swiss Army D, way to miss the point...or at least pretend to. You equated not spanking to "no physical custody of the kid."
Patrick at April 2, 2010 1:13 AM
Leave a comment