Poll: Your view on parents spanking their children?

[anthony87]

Physical discomfort yes, but not pain.

And how is physical discomfort achieved if not through pain?

....Really?

You're telling me that everytime you've been uncomfortable you've been in physical pain? You're aware that it's possible to "hit" someone without hurting them right?

 

[Froggy Slayer]

....Really?

You're telling me that everytime you've been uncomfortable you've been in physical pain? You're aware that it's possible to "hit" someone without hurting them right?

And you're awarey that it's impossible to hit someone without causing pain, right? You were specifically talking about physical discomfort, were you not? In order to cause physical discomfort you need to cause pain.

You don't. I get physical discomfort if I touch the inside of my belly button, or my eyes, but what it isn't is pain.

 

[FalloutJack]

snip

Double-posting, harassing, overly-hostile, disagreeable...

It's time for your time-out, young man. Go to your room until you're ready to apologize to the nice thread.

(Well, he seemed to be advocating a non-violent solution!)

 

[anthony87]

....Really?

You're telling me that everytime you've been uncomfortable you've been in physical pain? You're aware that it's possible to "hit" someone without hurting them right?

And you're awarey that it's impossible to hit someone without causing pain, right? You were specifically talking about physical discomfort, were you not? In order to cause physical discomfort you need to cause pain.

No it's not and no you don't. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that.

Yeah, it'll fade but I'm not talking about spinning a kid around and spanking him as soon as he puts a foot out of line. It's meant as a last resort.

And it's been proven that it doesn't work as a last resort and that it causes lasting psychological and in certain cases physical damage.

Proven by what? By whom? You gotta give me something here because I find it hard to believe that a light tap on the ass can cause lasting psychological damage.

If spanking doesn't deter the kid, maybe things like being grounded and having toys taken away will. If being grounded and having toys taken away doesn't deter the kid, then maybe being spanked will.

No it won't. If you can't think of any other way of disciplining your child other than hitting them then maybe it's time you give your GP a call and set an appointment with a psychologist.[/quote]

Please read what I've said again. I already put down other ways that a child can be disciplined besides spanking them. You really need to get over your own personal bias and try to look at things rationally.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

But you are conceding that sometimes a firm shoulder grasp is needed, yes?

You seem to be missing the point. In the situation you presented, a student is harassing another student to the point where they are physically assaulting them. In that case, yes, a teacher intervening and, if there is no other way, using physical force to diffuse the situation is acceptable.

In your original example you suggested that if a student is out of line, like for example talking during class, it should be acceptable for a teacher to intimidate them. That I do not agree with. There are proper ways to deal with a problem child and they do not involve physical coercion. A teacher isn't there to discipline children, they're there to teach.

But here you are conceding that sometimes physical force is sometimes, as a very last resort, necessary? Is it opposite day here or something?

Anyways guys, I'm out. Have fun debating, you bunch 'o' circle jerking divas.

(I'm sorry. That was mean. Sorry)

 

[anthony87]

But you are conceding that sometimes a firm shoulder grasp is needed, yes?

You seem to be missing the point. In the situation you presented, a student is harassing another student to the point where they are physically assaulting them. In that case, yes, a teacher intervening and, if there is no other way, using physical force to diffuse the situation is acceptable.

In your original example you suggested that if a student is out of line, like for example talking during class, it should be acceptable for a teacher to intimidate them. That I do not agree with. There are proper ways to deal with a problem child and they do not involve physical coercion. A teacher isn't there to discipline children, they're there to teach.

But here you are conceding that sometimes physical force is sometimes, as a very last resort, necessary? Is it opposite day here or something?

Anyways guys, I'm out. Have fun debating, you bunch 'o' circle jerking divas.

(I'm sorry. That was mean. Sorry)

Meh, no meaner than be told that your parents should've been sterilized, that they were bad parents, that YOU'LL be a bad parent, that you should see a psychologist etc.

 

[Aprilgold]

Also, to claim that you came out the other side fine when you still think that hitting a defenceless innocent is acceptable I would say proves that you aren't fine.

But they aren't innocent. That's the idea.

And they know better? The issue with hitting a child is that it solves nothing, at all. Your not teaching the kid what their doing is wrong, your just forcing them not to do it.

I'm sure we have all been to that stage to where we think we know what is best when we really don't. Smacking a child anywhere does nothing but cause pain. It doesn't stop them from bullying other kids, it doesn't stop them from doing stupid shit. All it does is instill fear and will never do anything past that.

If a parent has to resort to violence then they have already failed.

Pretty much this, if you don't have the patience or mind to simply pull the child away from danger or from doing something dangerous and have to resort to physically hurting your child your that much closer to being a physically abusive parent.

Your a parent, a shephard, a teacher and a role-model. Do you want your child to think beating on others is a acceptable way to get them to conform to what they want? OH MAN, THAT GAY KID! I'M GOING TO KNOCK HIS LIGHTS OUT, THAT WILL TEACH HIM TO NOT BE GAY! MY GIRLFRIEND ISN'T LISTENING TO ME, I'M GOING TO SLAP HER SO SHE WILL! So on, so forth.

Your a role model, do you think that setting up a model of violence and fear is going to help your child grow as a person you inept fuck? Of course it bloody well won't, so don't do it.

It would be completely socially unacceptable for me to strike my girlfriend for playing up, so I don't see why it should be any different with a child, children are people too.

When you see some people on the news in care homes occasionally taking their frustration out on the old people they're taking care of, people are up in arms. "These people need to be taken care of, not punished for their own ineptitude or difficulty!"

The polls here show a pretty worrying figures to me. Why the fuck is there a double standard for kids?

I can agree with this. Except for its even worse on children because their still developing, mentally and socially so hitting them creates a more fearful, less nurturing environment. When your child shoots up a place you kinda have to blame yourself for not, earlier, teaching him better instead of instilling fear of you into his little mind.

 

[Signa]

The most disgusting thing about these threads is how judgmental the anti-spankers get. "you're a bad parent. You need therapy. You're hurting the innocent! Spanking is sexual!" Yet the pro-spankers say it's all cool if you want to spank or not, they are leaving it up to the parent to decide what is right for their own kids. No one is advocating abuse, no matter how much some of you may want to spin it to sound like that.

 

[TheOrb]

Either smack 'em or do the "wait, wait, wait" strategy.

 

[Bobkat1252]

I'm studying psychology at my university and I took a class a few semesters ago on developmental psychology. From what I read in that class, hitting a child is not only an ineffective form of punishment (they rarely can foresee the consequences of their actions if they even understand the concept of consequence), but can be terribly damaging to a child's mental state. A child may often learn to fear rather than respect a parent's authority which can damage the long term relationship with their parents and even develop self esteem and self efficacy issues.

Punishment is better often taught through other means such as the classic time out for the little ones or additional household chores if the child is a bit older. The reason parents will sometimes say these don't work is that the kid naturally rebels against the punishment and the parent does not have the strength of will or time to make the child follow through.

And beyond the psychological effects, hitting a child is sickening, how is hitting something that is both helpless against you and totally unaware that it has done something wrong ever justified? Should we hit someone with brain damage if they misbehave? Should we hit an Alzheimer's patient when they act out? No, and neither should we hit a child.

 

[Signa]

Also, to claim that you came out the other side fine when you still think that hitting a defenceless innocent is acceptable I would say proves that you aren't fine.

But they aren't innocent. That's the idea.

And they know better? The issue with hitting a child is that it solves nothing, at all. Your not teaching the kid what their doing is wrong, your just forcing them not to do it.

I'm sure we have all been to that stage to where we think we know what is best when we really don't. Smacking a child anywhere does nothing but cause pain. It doesn't stop them from bullying other kids, it doesn't stop them from doing stupid shit. All it does is instill fear and will never do anything past that.

All I can say to that is you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. A kid doesn't cross lines JUST because they don't know better, they can cross it because they WANT to after being told not to. You're supposed to verbally set those lines up first, and then punish for crossing them. I never said that you should spank a kid just because they committed a crime they aren't aware of. That's stupid and it doesn't enforce anything, just as you said.

Forcing your kids to do things is a critical part of their development. If you're not forcing them to do things that they should, then you are failing your job as a parent to raise them to be an adult in the world. You don't have to be harsh about it, and it doesn't require spanking, but if a kid doesn't understand that something needs to be done, or there will be consequences for failing, then that kid is more likely going to grow up spoiled.

And how is pain and fear bad to motivate someone from doing something bad? Last time I checked, I didn't want to stick my hand in an open flame because of the pain, and the fear of that pain. I used to tempt fate and ride my bike without holding the handle bars, until I crashed it and skinned my knees and palms. Guess what I stopped doing after that? The world isn't covered in pillows and safety nets, so if a kid grows up unafraid of pain and consequences, he's going to get himself into trouble with the law or someone else not afraid to give him the beating he's earned. "Time Out" may be enough for a lot of kids, but there are a lot of kids that time is just more time to plot out more trouble. Those kids are the ones you save the spankings for, because they are far from innocent or unknowing.

PS: If you're going to take the hard-line on an issue, be sure you're using the right "you're" and "they're." Typos happen, but your post had at least 3 incorrect homophones. I'm not one to be a grammar nazi, but you're supposed to be the enlightened one here spreading your wisdom down unto the unwashed masses such as myself. I'm not trying to discredit your position on grammar, but I know you wouldn't take me seriously if I wrote back in cellphone or l33t speak.

 

[The White Hunter]

Adults behave like we should because we understand and care about the ideas of long-term consequences, for ourselves and (hopefully) for other people.

Children are often too young for either, and any deterrents against unacceptable behaviours must be fast and direct. Physical punishment is, for this reason, effective.

Now obviously you don't want to cause any kind of real damage, but sometimes they need a smack upside the head.

Yes and no, it's generally better to reward positive behaviour as a preventative measure.
Buuuuuuut, I'm all for giving kids the occasional short sharp smack. I mean don't go and use a blunt object or anything just smack it on the arse sharply and be done with it.

Also use other forms of behaviour management too, or they'll just see you as an enemy. Explain to them what they did wrong and why you were angry. Simple.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

I got whipped by a belt all the time when I was younger.
I used to dread my father coming home cuz I knew I would be getting in trouble for something.
My mother favored wooden spoons though. Immigrant parents! Woohoo!

I turned out okay though and it was a pretty effective form of discipline. I personally would never do it to my future kids however.
A lot of my asian friends also got spanked as kids and we'd share stories. So on the bright side, it's a great way of making friends! ;D

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

I think corporal punishment should be legal in public schools.

well then, since most kids are complete bastards now-a-days, everyone would have a handprint on their face. not to mention that teachers and kids alike could abuse the power.

O.T: i think it should be a last resort, only used for the most serious of offences. my dad got pans in the back of the head as a kid. his dad gave him 8 concussions. i cant risk getting used to hitting little jimmy because he called little suzie a poo-poo head [fake little kids names]. plus, spanks are meant to instil fear into the receiver of said spank, not respect. the kids i know who got wooden spoons are the ones smoking weed behind my high school, they want to rebel because they dont respect their parents enough to be good children and citizens.