A Question - Why The Child?

The categorization of "child" is used to defend the use of corporal
punishment against them as somehow fitting a behavior that if exercised
against an adult would bring criminal charges.

Somehow, of ALL people, "child" is the ONE category that one can hit,
that is 'assault', and call it by any number of euphemistic names,
because of what characteristic of the child?

What is is about "child" that makes this act, that would be assault
against any other category, acceptable against a child?

What is it that a child does to earn this special place among humans?

Is the child a dangerous threat to his or her "handlers?"

Are they particularly more evil to the point of losing human rights
afforded all others?

Is it something in their lack of intellectual development that requires
they be hit to be trained?

Do we in fact do this to people that are retarded in this development?

Why the Child?



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

0:- wrote:

The categorization of "child" is used to defend the use of corporal
punishment against them as somehow fitting a behavior that if exercised
against an adult would bring criminal charges.

Somehow, of ALL people, "child" is the ONE category that one can hit,
that is 'assault', and call it by any number of euphemistic names,
because of what characteristic of the child?

Try young, weak, vulnerable, and legally assaultable.

What is is about "child" that makes this act, that would be assault
against any other category, acceptable against a child?

Because one legally can do so.

What is it that a child does to earn this special place among humans?

His/her weakness, vulnerability, and lack of protection.

Is the child a dangerous threat to his or her "handlers?"

Yes. The child is a naturally curious individual, seeking autonomy,
testing limits, trying to understand the world, and therefore
threatening to less secure adults trying to raise the child. In order
to keep power, the adult results to hitting because in the realm of
physical assault, the adult will always win short-term over the little
child. The adult remains powerful and regains his/her feeling of being
"in control." The adult no longer feels his/her loss of power is
threatened.

Are they particularly more evil to the point of losing human rights
afforded all others?

Some would say so, which stems from Calvinism. I suspect most spanking
adults simply feel threatened and insecure, and in hitting a child they
feel power.

Is it something in their lack of intellectual development that requires
they be hit to be trained?

There are individuals who don't understand that learning appropriate
social behavior is no different than learning certain physical and
cognitive skills. These individuals may not hit a child for not knowing
how to read or for not knowing how to ride a bike, but these individuals
would hit a child for not knowing how to behave in certain situations.

These are individuals who do not understand maturation and teaching.

Do we in fact do this to people that are retarded in this development?

I suspect many of the child-hitters would do so, if the individual
retarded in development was under the age of 18. In fact, I know from
experience this is what sometimes happens. Over the age of 18, the
individual is protected from physical assault, even with a cognitive delay.

Why the Child?

Because it is legal, and because they can.

LaVonne