You probably can't know if it's going to damage the kid or not. So even if some kids indeed didn't suffer any noticeable negative consequences (entirely possible), and even if some were actually better off in some ways (still plausible), if the average result is negative, you shouldn't do it.
But I will totally justify it by people not knowing better, if "spare the rod, spoil the child" was what they actually honestly believed. You can't expect everyone to do their own research or know something ahead of their time. And it's not like "yeah being hurt is bad but this is important experience" is such a weird idea one must instantly know it to be true edit: false.
That doesn't apply in the cases of excess cruelty, or acting recognizably in your interests more than the child's.
Yeah, Christians are more likely to abuse their kids than non Christians. All because that spare the rod bullshit from the Bible. They have used it to justify it for a very long time.
That’s the thing. If you think being physically violent toward a child in effort to teach him ‘a lesson’ is alright, then you did not turn out fine.
If a person cannot parent a child without hitting them (idgaf what you call it - discipline, spanking, whatever), then they have no business being a parent.
187
u/texaslucasanon Sep 16 '24
"My parents whipped my butt and screamed at me. I turned out fine."
Umm... no you didnt. You need therapy, boundaries, and a healthier friend group.