@benaveryisgood It’s one of those weird sequels where you don’t remember if you actually washed it and then you watched it again you’re like I don’t remember any of this
Useful point on this is that Sam Hyde's upbringing was firmly upper middle class--he and his parents lived in an affluent area and Sam's public behavior has always implied a UMC upbringing. His views on corporal punishment are a strong tell for this. UMCs are pretty much universally opposed to physical punishment of any kind, including the occasional spanking, which they're convinced will turn their kids into emotionally harmed psychopaths. They can't tell the difference between actual physical abuse and physical discipline like spanking, used sparingly and to reinforce a sense of consequence for dangerous behavior.
Spanking for not eating his broccoli? Probably excessive and futile. But spanking for doing something that could bring serious harm to another child or to himself? Probably warranted.
Ironically Sam cites a bunch of social science to the effect that spanking is harmful, but these studies are worth less than the paper they're printed on. This is due to problems like study sample, definitional issues with corporal punishment, conflation of emotional and verbal abuse with physical abuse, and researcher bias. It's simply an area of life that does not lend itself to this type of scientific study because each case must be put in its own precise context.
Meanwhile, looking at child and adolescent behavior today, it is very difficult to conclude that the decline in corporal punishment has produced better behaved offspring. Liberal parenting which consists of negotiation/multiple choice outcomes ("eat your peas and you can have your iPad") leaves children feeling unparented and unprotected. One of the forgotten benefits of parental discipline that includes corporal punishment is that it reassures the child that he lives in a world of order and in which he has a strong protector. The parent who relies only on words and unwonted application of "the rules" cannot bestow this sense of safety. (There are many ways to reinforce this aside from discipline, but liberals tend not to do any of them because they themselves have a neurotic relationship with authority.)
It is commonly observed that parents who are weak (i.e. follow fashionable liberal dictates) often have unruly children, precisely because their children feel a compulsion to test their boundaries to find out how unsafe they are. It is as though they are unconsciously aware that a weak parent cannot protect them, and they must therefore become more aggressive themselves to compensate. This is also implicated in cases of disrespect and open defiance--corporal punishment here is futile precisely because the symptoms already indicate the child does not feel protected by a weak or variable parent, therefore punishment will only increase his feelings of insecurity.
Then there's the fact that corporal punishment has been far and away more demonized than a much greater parental failing: emotional and verbal abuse. (It just so happens that mothers are frequently a source for these, because women lack the ability to strongly lead and tend to be purely reactive to disobedience.) Studies on corporal punishment mix up the data, ignoring the fact that frequent corporal punishment is likely accompanied by either neglectful parenting or a short emotional fuse. Any kind of chaos in the home will also produce the same sort of insecurity, as will parental passivity and a domineering mother.
"Spanking lowers IQ" is where it gets truly eye-rolling. It's basically science fiction for liberals (who "don't believe in" IQ, except when they need to insult non-liberals). Dude, you're just noticing that white people have been gulled by social science majors into completely folding because "the science" says everyone in human history was wrong until 1970.
Here's what I notice in the real world: fathers are the most important element in successful child rearing. Fathers who invest in their child's growth and maturity, who set a positive model for the child, and who provide consistent boundaries that ensure the child's feeling of security will almost invariably produce good sons and daughters. Fathers who are passive, variable, undisciplined, weak, or who allow a neurotic mother to interfere in the child's upbringing will always produce erratic results.
Liberals have used the spanking debate to get around all this; in effect it allows them to say, "I'm a good parent because I use my words instead of my hand." This is how liberals approach reality.
@Reboticant@Crypt0_Facts It’s incredible that people just can’t help but add something completely different to a very focused statement and say wow look at this.
I don’t understand why people do that
The problem is that some parents hit in reactive anger, this is the wrong way and probably causes the issues you're talking about.
If a parent sends the child away to timeout and tells the child that they are getting a spank after, that is way more effective in long term discipline. You don't even have to spank them, just the contemplation of the possibility of a spank corrects the behavior.
If a spank is to be delt by the parent, it needs to be after a period of reflection and de-escalation by the parent for the parent.
When people justify "hitting" with Bible verses, they need to know that the Bible is referring to calm, loving punishment to benefit the child, not quick violence to satisfy the parent's anger.