Mr. Soeth
English 3 AP
February 17, 2011
REGUGO Analysis: Government
A. Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit. by Murray A. Straus
Hitting Children is Good by RNW News Desk
B. Articles atatched. (in comments)
C. In the article Hitting a child is wrong, Murray A. Straus states that adults should treat children in ways that do not harm them because there are no circumstances that make hitting an acceptable form of punishment.
In Hitting Children is Good by RNW News Desk, they argue that hitting is essential when raising children because it makes them aware that they have done something wrong.
D. Straus incorporates pathos into his argument with the statement, "Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children." When a person is angry, they are more likely to act in violent ways towards others. For example, when a child does something that aggravates a parent, the parent is more likely to have a negative response than a positive response. To a young child, hitting others implies that detrimental physical contact is the only way to have control over others. Parents set the example for their kids of what is right and accepted in society.
Straus utilizes logos in this article with a quote from the book Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. It said, "The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." Straus is saying that instead of physically harming minors, telling them that they did something wrong would be more effective. Speaking to kids calmly after they have done something wrong sends a message to them saying that the parent understands and forgives them.
The author uses pathos in his article when he says, "If you interpret the Bible literally then it says that you can hit your children and that you can continue until the will of the child is broken." Incorporating the Bible into any argument is considered extremely emotional because religion is a topic that everyone has their own opinions about. The Bible has always been open to interpretation, so the author uses it to his advantage by stating that hitting children until their will is broken is acceptable.
"If you are going to hit your child and they are not really convinced by it then you might as well not do it." This is another example of pathos in the article Hitting Children is Good. The author is convinced that when you physically discipline a child, it is crucial to make them regret whatever they did that put them in the situation. He is insinuating that hitting or spanking should be taken seriously if that is what a parent decides on as a punishment.
E. "When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced?" In this series of rhetorical questions, Straus suggests that there is an uncertainty with what is considered to be the correct way to discipline a child. People have heard the statistics about how hitting young children is good for them, but is also morally incorrect. No one can prove that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them, so with all of the different options available, confusion and speculation will always describe the average parent when it comes to controling their children.
In the article Hitting a Child is Wrong, the author affectively uses repitition. "There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our dependent children." He repeats the words social, legal, and moral because they excellently describe the debate on whether or not hitting children is alright. Are people in our society hittin their kids? It isn't legal, but is it also a moral crime?
The author of Hitting Children is Good asks a rhetorical question: "Should the minister be able to make these statements without fear of prosecution?" The minster states that the Bible says it is alright to hit children.But by saying this, however, he is not sure if he will be considered a child abuser. People are entitled to their own opinions and have freedom of speech and religion; he should not be prosecuted for saying what he believes in.
"Children realise after a couple of times that the hitting stops when they start to cry, so they start to simulate this. So you have to keep going until a real change of heart is visible, until the child shows real remorse." This is an example of a hortative sentence because it tells the reader to continue to hit the child until they are certain they have learned their lesson. Parents who choose to hit their children should know when to stop the physical pain they bring their kids.
F. Physically hurting a child is how many parents discipline their kids because it instills fear in them and is considered a way for parents to feel superior. I disagree, however, because a physical attack on a child's body is not an acceptable thing to do. Hitting children might seem to offer people a shortcut, but in reality, it lowers their self esteem and can cause traumatic experiences.
MLA Citation:
"Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit." Murray A. Straus. Web. 2011 Feb 17.
"Hitting Children is Good". RNW News Desk. Web. 2011 Feb 17.
Should a religious leader be able to preach that hitting children is a good thing to do?
ReplyDeleteA controversial Evangelical preacher has hit the headlines here in the Netherlands after telling parents to hit their children and keep on going even when the children start crying from the pain.
The preacher, who has three children himself, first hit the headlines a week ago when Dutch newspapers reported that he was advocating beating as an essential aspect of child rearing. Now the public prosecutor has confirmed that the man will be prosecuted after making the controversial statements.
Bible
The Algemeen Dagblad newspaper reported the Pentecostal minister, Gertjan Goldschmeding, as saying:
"If you interpret the Bible literally then it says that you can hit your children and that you can continue until the will of the child is broken."
The quotes come from a recording of a sermon given in 2007, which the newspaper has acquired.
"Children realise after a couple of times that the hitting stops when they start to cry, so they start to simulate this. So you have to keep going until a real change of heart is visible, until the child shows real remorse," he said.
The minister, from the ACC Jouwkerk in the central Dutch town of Amersfoort, went on to add that leaving scars was not allowed but 'leaving marks on the body was no bad thing,' according to the newspaper.
The preacher made the comments during a conference on discipline and raising children. In an interview with Radio Netherlands Worldwide he confirmed his belief that hitting children is an essential part of parenting.
Police investigations were sparked when a member of his congregation went to the authorities saying he wanted to stop members of the church following the extreme advice.
Rod
Goldschmeding is also on record as saying that the Bible says that parents should use the 'rod' in bringing up their children. He explained that in his view this meant using a stick rather than a wooden spoon because, 'kids wouldn't feel anything from that.'
Asked about this statement by Radio Netherlands the preacher said:
“Yes I did say this… what I mean is that if you are going to hit your child and they are not really convinced by it then you might as well not do it. The child must realise that they have done something wrong and realise that they don’t want this to happen again.”
He went on to say that he denied the allegations that his theories on education were tantamount to child abuse saying his comments had been taken out of context elsewhere in the media. He said that hitting a child was always a difficult decision and should be done in a clear context of a loving family and as a means to correct deviant behaviour.
In a statement on the church's website Gertjan Goldschmeding say he is for open debate on issues of raising children and discipline and that he thinks that the pending prosecution is an attempt to stifle his freedom of belief.
Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any
ReplyDeletecircumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit.
Murray A. Straus
Hitting is wrong . Hitting is a violent thing to do. Violence is a thing one person does to make another person hurt. We want to treat children in ways that do not hurt or harm them. We can. We want to be kind and gentle, not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and compassionate. There is no situation that changes hitting from a wrong thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically makes hurting children kind or merciful. This is confusing, though, isn't it? A law can say that it is all right to do a wrong thing to stop a wrong thing. Hitting, however, is nearly never a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defense from physical attack, for example, might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. The law sets a limit, though, for this rare situation. The law limits a defense to interrupting or ending the attack upon the physical safety of a person. The laws that also allow the physical punishment of children do not make it a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only allow it. Hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt. We will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children.
We do not say to our children (most of us, anyway), "hitting is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us are not 'in favor' of hitting children. However, many of us (most of us, actually) behave as if it is a good thing to do. We are in favor of spanking and physical punishment. The law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's body a thing that is all right to do.
The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted.
There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid.
So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the truth.