Is it acceptable for answers to suggest physical violence?

Question

Some questions mention the use of physical violence against children. Some answers recommend the use of physical violence.

Physical violence is an abuse of the rights of the child. See article 19 here: http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Protection_list.pdf

There are only two nations that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the US and Somalia.

Multiple UN organisations are opposed to physical violence against children. UNICEF and UNESCO are two.

http://www.unicef.org/barbados/spmapping/Implementation/CP/Global/Educate_donthit_SaveManual.pdf

Physical violence is illegal in 22 European countries, and has limited legality in the other EU nations. EG it is not legal to use anything but a hand in England.

Canada allows limited violence against children - never the head, parents only, child must be over 2 and under 12.

Physical violence is not even legal across all of the US. Delaware sees corporal punishment as child abuse.

Given all this is it acceptable for people to recommend something which is harmful, overwhelmingly rejected by child protection organisations and child development experts, illegal or of unclear legality in many areas, and perhaps most importantly ineffective?

Answer 1

This has come up before, to an extent.

General consensus so far has been that questions that ask about corporal punishment shouldn't be automatically closed. Questions should be closed because they are off-topic (or unclear, or not an appropriate format for the platform, etc.), and not because people disagree with the premise.

I think that should apply to answers, as well.

I don't believe answers that advocate corporal punishment should be deleted or censored. However, I frequently make a point of downvoting them, and explaining why. It really depends on how they are worded, and the overall quality of it. An answer saying "spanking was good enough for my parents to use on me, and I turned out okay, therefore it's a great method" without any further references or explanation is usually an example of what I feel is low quality, and I'll likely downvote as a result.

On the other hand, an answer that advocates spanking, but includes some clarification as to how it might be applied, how not to use it, and includes some practical advice such as "never use corporal punishment while angry" is not what I consider low quality, even if I personally disagree with the premise. I likely won't upvote answers like that, but I probably won't downvote them, either.

In point of fact, the overwhelming rejection of corporal punishment isn't strictly based on the idea that it doesn't work. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics' 1998 Policy Statement on Corporal Punishment, which is widely cited as one of the primary justifications for not using corporal punishment, acknowledges that it can be effective, in some limited circumstances. However, it qualifies that by pointing out that correct use is difficult to the point of being impractical, and is not any more effective than other means.

There are a significant portion of people out there who see our movement away from corporal punishment as the reason for a host of problems. I have yet to see one single compelling piece of evidence supporting that opinion, but people maintain it nonetheless.

I don't believe it is appropriate for us to delete or censor content simply because we believe they are wrong.

I also don't believe it is necessarily appropriate to censor or delete content because we find it personally offensive. That is entirely too subjective when it is the position they are taking that offends us, rather than the tone or phrasing.

Consider, for example, religion. Answers that advocate specific stances on religious upbringings may be offensive to people of specific religions, atheists, or both (and note that atheism faces strict legal persecution in many countries, so the argument that many countries ban corporal punishment does not distinguish it from discussions on religious answers). Should a question that asks about teaching a child to pray be closed because some people think children shouldn't pray? How about answers that say "you should make your son pray" vs. answers that say "wait until he's old enough"? Some people could be offended by either side, yet I'd argue that both are valid responses for our platform.

The merits of such responses are determined by how people vote.

If you think corporal punishment is bad (and personally, I agree!), find answers that suggest that people use it, and downvote them if you think they offer harmful advice!.

Answer 2

Yes, it's acceptable. I don't have to like it, but free speech is free speech.
_{Excellent question, and a difficult one! This is a prime example of how our site is much more subjective than other SE sites.}

I don't think we can decide that people are not allowed to post certain content, even if we disagree with that content. Censorship is a slippery slope that will lead to many ugly arguments, and it will have a negative impact on our site. We had a similar discussion about the topic of firearms. It's not legal everywhere, but it has fierce proponents and opponents. It's hard to remain cool and objective, but we have to try.

I feel that we must allow people to say that corporal punishment worked for them. We can ask them to explain why they think it's necessary, and we can comment that the practice may not be legal for the asker.

When voting, I personally take the "hover description" of the arrows as literally as possible: "This answer is useful. / This answer is not useful." I try to judge based on internal merit and not based on personal (dis)agreement. If I disagree, I abstain from voting. This is where it gets subjective. Is an answer that encourages corporal punishment "useful"? I generally don't think so, but I could imagine that a user would write something very thoughtful about it that would make that specific contribution useful.

Answer 3

I agree with everything Beofett says in his answer up until the statement, "Down-vote them if you think they offer harmful advice." In general, I have understood the policy on voting to be that it is up to the user how to apply down-votes etc, but that generally reserving down-votes for questions and answers that are poorly formed or unsubstantiated is what is encouraged. I have encountered quite a few topics and answers I disagree with here - some I even feel, based on my knowledge and experience, that offer up ideas and solutions that may be harmful in the long term. The problem with simply down-voting, is that while it does not encourage new awareness.

I down-vote when an user is specifically negative about "the other camp" on a particular issue or if the answer is of a really poor quality.

I do absolutely make a note of commenting briefly everytime I see a user recommend physical discipline. The comment is usually about physical discipline generally not being seen as the best form anymore. Now with this question and the links within it and Beofett's answer, it will be easy to even link articles into these comments and still keep them brief (and not "soap-boxy." I feel this "informs" those that want to be informed about the practice and discourages it. I tend to up-vote competing answers that I do agree with and so do many others meaning those answers advocating physical violence tend to stay at the bottom of the pile even without a bunch of down-votes.

Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with down-voting if that is what someone wants to do and I have done so myself when the tone or answer seems particularly harsh or one-solution-only in general.

Answer 4

There are times when force is necessary and appropriate. Those times must be very carefully weighed before the application of force. This is true of children and adults.

While I was literally beat as a child and am wholly opposed to violence, I did use force in the form of spanking with my child; however, I reserved that for when she posed a danger to herself or others (e.g. wildly breaking things or hitting others), when she was not responding to attempts at reasoning her or commands to take a timeout, and I never applied it in anger or excess -- she was told how many swats she would get, they were done slowly, counted, and they were applied only to shock her from her out of control behavior. (These, I might add, were very rare occurrences.)

When she was 4 years old, she asked me why I spanked her. I told her I would be excited to never spank her again, but if she was out of control and a danger to herself or others, it was my job as her father to use force to stop her if reason didn't work. I never imagined that that would be the end of it, but it actually was the end of it!

The demeanor of each person varies and can vary substantially. That force was used cannot be considered without why the individual felt the use of force was the only available and appropriate means to resolve the immediate issue.

All that said, I very carefully chose the word "force" as opposed to "physical violence" -- they are most definitely not the same. But such distinctions are not always known to others, so a poor question or poor reasoning can find a great home on SE for answers which help those who may be unbalanced to find a better balance... how great would it be, then, to have helped a person be a better parent and played a small part in helping the child(ren)? Even if it's a casual reader of the question & answers or the asker themself.