Corporal Punishment
Channel: JTF2 -- KONEKTADO JACKALS
Date: 08/02/2016

"Dreams Become Real" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Source: 
Stopping adults from physically striking those younger than them, when scientific research clearly indicates such an action is not only worthless, but may very well be detrimental to children is a far cry away from being of dictatorial nature. Just because you're a parent, doesn't mean that you know "what is best," for your children. Especially when science (A study of causes, and effects in this case. ) says otherwise.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201309/research-spanking-it-s-bad-all-kids

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-me-in-we/201202/how-spanking-harms-the-brain

Maurry A Strauss' research though going out on more of a scientific limb does link up some correlations between future aggression, and spanking.(Don't forget Correlation does not equal causation -- cum hoc, ergo propter hoc) What you're doing when you engage in corporal punishment is called (Spanking is classified as such), is something called transference. It makes your child approach every situation in a far different manner all throughout their lives. Would you rather them approach a violent situation with intellectual rigor, rather than avoiding fighting simply over fears of punishment(Which we all know doesn't work. When your kid goes to parties in High School, what do you think happens? Don't be so naive.) Wouldn't you rather a child come to a conclusion that they detest violence in the first place? You're teaching them bad decision making, because your child will believe that a way to get what they want is through forceful means(What you're doing). Not too mention when you state that "my parents spanked me, and i'm fine!" I'd beg to differ. You're exhibiting a clear logical fallacy making such a statement. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, or First Before Then After. It basically states that since event y(Y=you being good) followed event x(x=spanking) therefore event Y must have been caused by event x. Not too mention you're also demonstrating regression fallacy by failing to account for natural fluctuations.

Example here by Wikipedia: "The pain subsiding a little after it has gotten worse is more easily explained by regression towards the mean. Assuming the pain relief was caused by the doctor is fallacious.

The student did exceptionally poorly last semester, so I punished him. He did much better this semester. Clearly, punishment is effective in improving students' grades.

Often exceptional performances are followed by more normal performances, so the change in performance might better be explained by regression towards the mean. Incidentally, some experiments have shown that people may develop a systematic bias for punishment and against reward because of reasoning analogous to this example of the regression fallacy.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Basically you're stating cause where none exists. Your child is likely aligning himself with the means of society, rather than strictly responding to your punishment. Don't forget that by striking your child, you aren't really addressing the core concerns that you had with their actions. They won't learn from that, but instead will likely learn later on in their lives through one way or another.  Children are like little scientists discovering everything. And their aptitude with regards to testing isn't necessary good for them (Putting small objects in their mouth for example can be a choking hazard.), instead I think that it may be better if a parent helps a child develop their critical thinking faculties early on. 
I also suggest reading the overview of section 43 of the criminal code of Canada.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0510-e.htm

This act also gives protection to teachers that wish to punish children physically -- though no school board would ever allow it.

Our Quote Of The Day:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy