Poll: Your view on parents spanking their children?

[47_Ronin]

Why do we not commit crimes when no one is looking? Because most of us have a set of morals instilled to us, morals which we reach by understanding our social context. Violence is not needed for that process and is thusly superfluous.

I say that from an educators perspective, but wisdom is not inherently mine.

 

[Aprilgold]

Says you, the one who never was spanked. Get a time machine, go back to your childhood and get spanked for breaking mama's favorite lamp, THEN talk to me about how awful it was. You wouldn't, because you'd know you were being a little brat that deserved it. Also telling me to piss off shows lack of the respect that I expect many spanked kids have instilled in them. I respect your right to your opinion. I do not respect how you talk down to me, my upbringing and my parents who love me an all my siblings very much.

I have and I did. I pretty much treated my father like absolute shit at one point and he did lay his hand across my bottom. And I can tell you the feeling of it to the T. It was pain and it was fear of my father, something I never felt as long as I have been alive. He himself said he did spank me for no other reason then he didn't know how to react. I have looked into it and that is usually what it is. It reminds me of why you don't shake babies, because it will kill them, it isn't as severe here sure but its the same exact thing, you don't react out of rage at a child specifically because they are still developing and very impressionable. Giving the impression of violence does nothing but cement the idea that violence is acceptable in their minds.

You didn't know that. I didn't know about your upbrining. Yelling at me over something that I could not have possibly known is my point once again. Kids don't have a large attention span or memory and your pretty much beating them over something they do not know or remember.

I'm sorry if I came across that way, but I am not omnipotent and didn't know.

Finally, my Piss Off comment came right after you were yelling at me for being on some type of fictional high-horse which is nothing more then fiction. I do not think I am better then you for the way I think or speak and your pulling a victim act or you are generally confused, neither of which I honestly care for.

Also, I can't believe you have retracted to using this argument. I don't have to drive three hundred miles a hour into a brick wall to know that it will probably hurt a hell of a lot. And once again "Look at this big man here with all of his intellect who never meant to be insulting or a dick being a meanie with all of his knowledge picking on the poor common folk."

Edit: I found a something silly in your statement. I knew when I was being a brat because of the way I was raised which was non-violently and I was taught why certain things were bad and acceptable ways to act or deal with things however punishing a child by instilling violence and fear into them to make them complacent is somehow OK when the other method is somehow better. I'm just making sure you got that right and you know which side your arguing on.

 

[BringBackBuck]

That you would abandon civility and resort to psychical harm from an inability to verbally control a child or direct the mentally handicapped, is both sad and louche.

I can only pray that if you ever have a child, they don't manage to confound you and leave you wanting for words, less they be struck.

Not every situation can be resolved through rational dialogue. Children below a certain age (I'm guessing maybe 4 or 5) do not understand logic, nor do some mentally handicapped. If someone is in danger than a measured physical response may be the only sensible option.

So not only should children be struck (and by the by, thinking that children of 3-5 don't understand words is pretty indicative of your own ignorance) but the mentally handicapped should be beaten as well when they do something dangerous!

Hey, my elderly grandmother has dementia and sometimes runs her bathwater too hot, should I smack her over the head because she doesn't understand logic?

I did not say 3 year olds do not understand words, I said 3 year olds do not understand logic. A 3 year old will sit down on the footpath and cry because he wants to be at home. He will do this for 10 minutes only 15 metres from his house, rather than just walking home. That is not logical. A 3 year old will cry because she is distraught her nappy is full of shit, but will be too distraught to let you change it... etc etc etc.

Your example is ridiculous and has nothing to do with what I said. I said If someone is in danger than a measured physical response may be the only sensible option. A better example would have been, if your elderly grandmother with dementia was about to wander into a minefield and didn't understand your explanation of "don't go into that minefield", would you let her keep walking or would you physically restrain her?

 

[scw55]

Violence and fear are tools of the weak. Spanking teaches children to hit when confronted with a problem and inspires anxiety over consequences instead of respect for values.

I agree. When I was smacked what felt like often when I was young and I did something naughty.I knew it was something naughty and I was scared of being smacked. I didn't feel guilty for what I did. I didn't feel remorse for cutting up my mother's items, destroying food. Destroying the cool packs. Eating presents for people which were kept in a cupboard. If I did feel moral twangs I wouldn't have done these things. No, I did the things because in my mind they were justifiable. And ironically because I was physically punished for it, it only reinforced the justification. I was an inquisitive child. And I was punished for it. And the punishment on a subconscious level made me a bitter child that made me more inclined to do naughty things (it has continued till my University, where in School there were often 'class detentions' because of a few people's activities. In University I became very, covertly horrible and skipped many lectures because it felt right.

What I am saying, it's best to prevent incidents where a child could be naughty from even happening. Like if you have items that would appeal to a child, store them out of reach of children. You can argue 'Why should I have to do this?'
My reply is "You keep medicine and cleaning chemicals out of reach don't you? Why do you have to keep these substances that will kill your child out of their reach? They should learn not to drink them and die!"
Prevention is more effective than consequence because a child won't really learn from physical punishment. They aren't told why it was bad. They just get hit. Patronising you child by assuming they wouldn't understand it is stupid. They will. They go to school for Christ sake to learn. I believe that smacking them when they feel it's uncalled for and are unable to protest will only encourage them to misbehave out of revenge.

Can I say "Fuck off" to the forum posters who say "I don't think people who don't have children have the right to post?". This is not the point. We were all children once, and we can give feedback. Saying that you must have a child to comment is as bullying as smacking a child. Why can't we say how we perceived smacking? There's the argument that "It's over quickly and they'll forget about it". I'm sure we do on the surface. So why when my mum is upset or angry I get very anxious? I am 23 years old, my mum is old and fat and yet when she is in that state I revert back to a 3 year old?

If a child will perform an act that is dangerous to themselves or others. Physically prevent them to continue and firmly tell them not to do it and why.
Children are basically pets. You scorn them when you do something bad and praise them when they do something good. Studies has shown that positive reinforcement is stronger training aid for dogs than punishment. The American Army train their dogs in this manner because it is the most effective. Humans are animals. Young children have the sameish intelligence as a dog. If you own a cat/dog you will see behaviour in them that is very similar to a young child.

 

[Newby_Newb]

Spanking is simply lazy parenting.


There are better and more effective ways of disciplining children.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

That you would abandon civility and resort to psychical harm from an inability to verbally control a child or direct the mentally handicapped, is both sad and louche.

I can only pray that if you ever have a child, they don't manage to confound you and leave you wanting for words, less they be struck.

Not every situation can be resolved through rational dialogue. Children below a certain age (I'm guessing maybe 4 or 5) do not understand logic, nor do some mentally handicapped. If someone is in danger than a measured physical response may be the only sensible option.

So not only should children be struck (and by the by, thinking that children of 3-5 don't understand words is pretty indicative of your own ignorance) but the mentally handicapped should be beaten as well when they do something dangerous!

Hey, my elderly grandmother has dementia and sometimes runs her bathwater too hot, should I smack her over the head because she doesn't understand logic?

I did not say 3 year olds do not understand words, I said 3 year olds do not understand logic. A 3 year old will sit down on the footpath and cry because he wants to be at home. He will do this for 10 minutes only 15 metres from his house, rather than just walking home. That is not logical. A 3 year old will cry because she is distraught her nappy is full of shit, but will be too distraught to let you change it... etc etc etc.

Your example is ridiculous and has nothing to do with what I said. I said If someone is in danger than a measured physical response may be the only sensible option. A better example would have been, if your elderly grandmother with dementia was about to wander into a minefield and didn't understand your explanation of "don't go into that minefield", would you let her keep walking or would you physically restrain her?

No they won't. Have you ever had any contact with a 3 year old? I've known 3 year olds who were almost entirely toilet trained. I was toilet trained by 2!

Maybe your example would work for children under the age of 1, but under the age of 1 they won't even understand what the physical punishment is for, and you explaining why you hit them will do no good.

By the time children are old enough to understand why you hit them, they are old enough to understand reasoning. It sounds like you have very little experience of young children, but a 3 year old is more than capable of understanding punishment and discipline without physical discipline.

 

[BringBackBuck]

What I am saying, it's best to prevent incidents where a child could be naughty from even happening. Like if you have items that would appeal to a child, store them out of reach of children. You can argue 'Why should I have to do this?'
My reply is "You keep medicine and cleaning chemicals out of reach don't you? Why do you have to keep these substances that will kill your child out of their reach? They should learn not to drink them and die!"

I entirely agree with your point about people without children having an equally valid opinion. Some parents who have a tough time with kids, can be like the stereotypical veitnam vet: YOU WREN"T THERE, MAN! YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE.
However your proposed solution is not going to be very successful. In my house most of the disciplining happens when my kids don't share their toys, steal each others food, don't want to take a bath, don't use their manners etc. Removing all toys, food, and baths isn't really an option. They see things they want on TV, in a toy shop, at a supermarket. You can't lock them in the house cut off from the outside world with no stimulation just so they don't misbehave.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Why do we not commit crimes when no one is looking? Because most of us have a set of morals instilled to us, morals which we reach by understanding our social context. Violence is not needed for that process and is thusly superfluous.

I say that from an educators perspective, but wisdom is not inherently mine.

I agree with this. Making a child link doing wrong with a tangible punishment without reinforcing morality via talking teaches them that all there is to fear from doing wrong is the punishment and nothing else. If the child is then in a situation in which the punishment is sure not to fall what reason do they have to be good?

 

[anthony87]

snip

Fair enough, after all you always get extremes on both sides of the argument. I mean as much as I'm not against spanking, saying that not spanking a kid is bad for them is just as ridiculous to me as equating spanking with holding a kid down and beating the shit out of them.

 

[FamoFunk]

Oh god, the parenting threads are back...

Spanking a child is never acceptable, ever. It shows lack of control and parenting skills.

It initiates fear into a child too young to understand why Mummy or Daddy are hurting them, it doesn't teach them what they've done wrong (talking does that) and teaches the child it's acceptable to physically attack others (like in school) because said person is being "naughty"

I dislike the argument that "My parents hit me and I never did **** again" nearly every time it isn't because the child knows what they did was bad, they don't do it because they're scared their parents will hit him again. That's really piss poor parenting, a child should never be scared of it's parents, the people who're suppose to love them and make them feel safe.

 

[Simon Pettersson]

All form of violence should only be used as the last resort.

 

[tehroc]

That is what is wrong with today's generation, not enough ass beatings. There is a serious lack of discipline in today's society.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

It is well documented that children who are subjected to physical violence as a method of punishment suffer significant drops in IQ scores similar to that of adult victims of post traumatic stress disorder.

Furthermore, I don't find "violence is a good method of solving problems" to be a great lesson to teach children, especially if you don't even properly explain what the child has done wrong, and MUCH more importantly, WHY it is wrong.

 

[Yopaz]

Using violence as a disciplinary action shows your kids that violence can be accepted.

But it IS accepted in appropriate circumstances and with appropriate levels of force.

So I guess you are teaching them the right lesson.

Well, there are laws against violence and it is considered a crime unless it's self defense. Few countries allow violence as a punishment (kids being spanked is the exception).

When kids are being spanked it's not about self defense, which is the accepted form of violence, it's out of anger which is also why so many are sent to jail on assault charges.

I had never thought so many would argue the fact that violence is bad considering the fact that there are laws against it.

I had never thought so many would argue the fact that black and white "always bad" "always good" claims are almost always misguided.

Go back. Read my post. I said violence is OK when it comes to self defense. You ignore the fact that I mentioned something in between and accuse me of thinking black and white. Now can you actually mention one type of incident outside of self defense where violence is accepted by the law?

 

[Squickster]

Verbal warnings are all well and good, but physical pain only drives home a paint that you did SOMETHING wrong. Sometimes telling a child what they did was wrong and a good spank goes a lot further that the simple "no no no".

I endorse physical punishment because i learned the best that what i was doing was wrong when i was younger this way. Writing sentences (100+ times was the very least) was boring, repetitive and just inspired me to try and figure out ways to not get caught. Time outs are a joke; Lectures teach the fake listening still; and taking away "privileges" just made me want to find the loop holes or just forced me to find something else to fill the void till i had said privilege back.

Although, public spankings are counter productive, because after the punishment is dealt there is the looking around to see the reactions of everyone, and usually this is one of sympathy and not ones of approval so the lesson is usually not taught, just quelled for the moment.

Verbal warnings can be incredibly effective if eye contact is made, you speak with authority and not volume, and be quick about it. An "or else" can be way more effective than the quick and simple spank.

 

[Yopaz]

Using violence as a disciplinary action shows your kids that violence can be accepted.

But it IS accepted in appropriate circumstances and with appropriate levels of force.

So I guess you are teaching them the right lesson.

Well, there are laws against violence and it is considered a crime unless it's self defense. Few countries allow violence as a punishment (kids being spanked is the exception).

When kids are being spanked it's not about self defense, which is the accepted form of violence, it's out of anger which is also why so many are sent to jail on assault charges.

I had never thought so many would argue the fact that violence is bad considering the fact that there are laws against it.

I had never thought so many would argue the fact that black and white "always bad" "always good" claims are almost always misguided.

Go back. Read my post. I said violence is OK when it comes to self defense. You ignore the fact that I mentioned something in between and accuse me of thinking black and white. Now can you actually mention one type of incident outside of self defense where violence is accepted by the law?

Go back and read my posts where I give multiple examples. But just to give you one, you can use reasonable force to control those under mental health medical control.

This thread is just starting to circle now, I think I'm bored and out...

There's a big difference between reasonable force and physical violence. In fact in many countries it's even illegal to use force of any kind that isn't self defense if you work with mentally challenged individuals. Also there are 9 pages on this thread, I do not want to hunt out your posts stating when physical violence can be accepted. I want one example where I can't mention a law against it.

 

[Yopaz]

Using violence as a disciplinary action shows your kids that violence can be accepted.

But it IS accepted in appropriate circumstances and with appropriate levels of force.

So I guess you are teaching them the right lesson.

Well, there are laws against violence and it is considered a crime unless it's self defense. Few countries allow violence as a punishment (kids being spanked is the exception).

When kids are being spanked it's not about self defense, which is the accepted form of violence, it's out of anger which is also why so many are sent to jail on assault charges.

I had never thought so many would argue the fact that violence is bad considering the fact that there are laws against it.

I had never thought so many would argue the fact that black and white "always bad" "always good" claims are almost always misguided.

Go back. Read my post. I said violence is OK when it comes to self defense. You ignore the fact that I mentioned something in between and accuse me of thinking black and white. Now can you actually mention one type of incident outside of self defense where violence is accepted by the law?

Go back and read my posts where I give multiple examples. But just to give you one, you can use reasonable force to control those under mental health medical control.

This thread is just starting to circle now, I think I'm bored and out...

There's a big difference between reasonable force and physical violence. In fact in many countries it's even illegal to use force of any kind that isn't self defense if you work with mentally challenged individuals. Also there are 9 pages on this thread, I do not want to hunt out your posts stating when physical violence can be accepted. I want one example where I can't mention a law against it.

Laws differ by country, thus your question is meaningless if it can't be against the law anywhere. By that standard, gay sex is unacceptable.

OK, I am going by laws that are a part of the international rights and laws. These are the same rights that make international organizations try to prevent the executions of homosexuals and rape victims in these countries. However let's play this by your rules then. Can you mention incidents where violence is permitted, now I am talking about violence, not force used to protect people, not force used when arresting someone. Actual physical violence.