Housebroken Lunatic said:
Dys said:
Funny, I don't recall saying anything about fear. I most certainly don't think ones child should fear them (though it is only natural for people, including children, to have a fear of consequences which is exactly why I wear my seatbelt while driving a car, or use a condom when having sex with my girlfriend, or, as a child, set the table before dinner[1]), I also never said it was a good idea to strike a child in anger. You're reading way beyond what I've said and misunderstanding the concept of a "smack".
Children, especially young children, do not necessarily have the communication skills to understand why their parents are telling them what to do. A smack to the bottom (not a full forced whack, a light, sharp smack) demonstrates to them that they are in trouble and that you are serious. You don't need to hurt them, I never said you should hurt them. I said that it was often beneficial to spank a child and it's absolutely stupid to claim that it's always the wrong way to raise a child (especially given how many parents employed this technique and have raised respectful, hardworking, law abiding members of society) and even more stupid to try and claim it's child abuse.
"Respectful, hardworking, law abiding members of sociey"... Yeah right. That's about as believable as all he people in this thread who all feel that they "turned out ok in the end". Of course that's what they are going to say (regardless of the truth of things), anything else would be an admission of something being wrong with themselves.
But I'll play along wih your argument for awhile. Tell me,
if it's just a "light smack to the bottom" that doesn't hurt or injure, you mean to tell me that it's no really about inflicting pain?
How can you not play along with that argument? The overwhelming majority of people have been raised that way, and guess what....most people don't turn out to be violent thugs. What portion of the people on this site do you think go out and beat people? Do you have any idea how stupid what your contending here is? 100 years ago *every* child was spanked/physically disciplined as a matter of course, by your logic, then, the streets should have been overrun with 'a clockwork orange' style thugs. Unless every history lesson I've ever had, and every bit of reading I've done in my life is entirely fabricated (most likely by those conspiring bastards who love beating children), you're full of shit.
I also don't understand, at all, what I've bolded. A light smack on the bottom that doesn't hurt or injure is clearly not about inflicting pain, it's about asserting control and demonstrating that you are in authority, while making it clear to the child that you are very upset with their behavior. I'm not saying that it's a good idea to smack your child whenever they forget to say 'thank you', but sometimes children get carried away and it's an effective, harmless way to draw them back to reality.
Because if that's what you're saying, you will inevitably have to concede to the fact that you yourself believe that children can respond to other types of communication than the infliction of pain. Naturally this begs the question that if it isn't about inflicting pain, then why couldn't you use a less barbaric and civlized way of communicating your idea to the child?
No, won't. That's stupid. I said that
some children may respond to other types of communication, with varying degrees of success, but that doesn't make spanking any more wrong. I sure as all fuck do not concede that there is anything barbaric of spanking a child. Surely it's more barbaric to let a child grow up free of discipline and end up broken, unable to cope living in a world with real consequences (and, just a fun fact, when you fuck up in the real world, it quite possibly can lead to real pain).
However, if it IS about inflicting pain, hen how is that any more right than any other form of torture?
Trust me, I know plenty of ways to hurt you in ways you will find excruciating, but won't really cause you much in the way of physical injury (I won't even have to leave a mark on your body). Are you saying that I shouldn't be arrested and tried for assault if I used these methods on you with the intenion of "teaching you some manners"?
Take waterboarding for instance (a technique considered by many counries across the world to be a form of torture and thus banned). You're not going to die by being subjected to waterboarding. You're not even going to have any permanent marks on your body or suffer any oher kind of disabiliy as a result of physical injury, since waterboarding doesn't really cause any physical injuries.
Does that make it right and proper to use when teaching random strangers "some manners"? And if not, why would you teach that lesson to a child that it is okay to use violence (as long as it doesn't cause physical injuries) against people? Because that's exactly what the child is being taught. The child is being taught that tolerating certain forms of violence with the specific intention of degrading, humiliating and cause people pain and physical discomfort is yay-okay.
So which is it? Is it about causing pain or not? Eiher way, your argument contains a shitload of flaws.
I don't really care what you're going to try and argue in your attempt to refute this. It's obvious that you somehow believe that spanking is some kind of "magical solution" that will ALWAYS instill the EXACT meaning that the parent might want to instill in the child.
...I never said this, I simply said that it was potentially effective and in some situations a necissary way to parent. Are you deliberately missing everything I'm saying?
Realistically speaking however, that is far from the truth...
I'm genuinely unsure if you're High, stupid or trolling, but I'll say it again so it's abundantly clear:
Smacking a child is not about inflicting pain, it is not about inspiring fear and it is in no way tantamount to water boarding or torture. Really, what the fuck man! It isn't a magical tool that makes parenting easy, parenting
IS NOT EASY! If you can't hack being the bad guy, and having to punish your children (which I promise is nearly always harder on the parent than the child) then you have absolutely no business raising a child.
I honestly don't know how to explain this, but to even
contend that a parent wants to
torture their children inspires all kinds of questions about your connection with reality.
Whatever dream world you live in, reality doesn't work that way. It's this bullshit attitude of "it's barbaric to hit kids" or "I'm my kids friend before their parent" is exactly why so many kids are drugged up to the max and misdiagnosed with conditions like ADD. If you want to fuck up your own kids, that's fine, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with parents opting to stick with the proven, effective methods that mankind has employed for thousands of years.
LOL)I don't remember being spanked though :S Hmm.... I dunno. I suppose if the reason for it was good enough.
