spanking

Great Debates
81

**

I don’t feel like getting into the specifics, but in one cases, I was repeating something I had already been punished for several other times, and the other I was doing something hurtful to one of my younger siblings and did know better.

In one case, I had been through the gambut of punishments and I was warned what would come next, and I did it anyway. In the other case, I was being an asshole and I deserved it. In fact, even at that age, I knew it.

Anything is possible. But the reason I put in the “(vastly different)” comments in the above is that in spitwe of our vast differences from each other, we were all good kids and are now good adults.

And I already said that I never spanked my step-daughter, who was not perfect.

With all due respect, I have seen vastly anti-spanking people give in to frustrations and smack their kid. I have also seen parents who swore they would be strict to make sure their kids don’t make the same mistakes they did, and they turned out to let their kids walk all over them.

As such, I don’t know what things will be like when (if) I am a father, and though Drain Bead and I think similarly on this issue, we are boound to have slight differences in child raising (disciplining included) that we work out.

The difference between you and I it seems to me is that you say “No spanking,” and I say “I’m not ruling anything out.” Because I am NOT “pro-spanking.” I’m pro-choice! :smiley:

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, two weeks, 22 hours, 38 minutes and 27 seconds.
5477 cigarettes not smoked, saving $684.72.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 25 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]

82

After reading the many personal accounts on this thread, I noticed that among those who were subjected to corporal punishment in their childhood, there is a wide variation in the way they remember these episodes. I realize now that my own opposition to spanking is not first and foremost based on a rational deliberation, but it is rather a reaction born out of the rage I feel today when I recall my own history. Sure, I get a great sense of relief to learn here that research seems to show that spanking doesn’t work. Our own successful, so far, experience with our almost 3 year old, reinforces my stand on this, but I admit that I would avoid spanking my daughter at any cost, even if the results of most studies would be tilted the other way.

Are there any studies that focus on the kids’ perspective? I am actually curious how many children would report being afraid of their parents as a result of spanking. How do they react to the parent’s anger, if they feel it, and for how long do they remember it? Also, if they forgive their parent or not, if they agree they deserved it or not, or in general, how it reflects on the child’s perception of the parent.

83

Been following the thread with much interest and have come to have the following thoughts:

[ul]
[li]Parents have used corporal punishment and raised kids that turned out good upright citizens.[/li][li]Parents have used corporal punishment and raised kids that turned out not so good and really messed up.[/li][li]Parents have not used corporal punishment and raised kids that turned out good upright citizens.[/li][li]Parents have not used corporal punishment and raised kids that turned out not so good and really messed up.[/li][li]In both cases the parents at times can and will screw up.[/li][li]Studies are available that can “prove or disprove” either case.[/li][/ul]

The bottom line remains that it is up to each parent to try to do the best they in raising each child. Out of my 5 kids not a one was alike in how they responded to disciplinary action! Where it took a good licking to instruct one, only a “look” was needed for another. Folks, I am convinced there are not ANY easy, hard and fast rules that can be empirically applied. There are as many different kinds of kids as there different kinds of parents.

I am also reminded of what a psych proffessor involved in reseach (different situation) once told me: “When asking for grant money, it is very helpful to know what results the grantor organization is expecting. It tends to allow the reseach to continue for longer periods.” Before adjusting the flamethrowers, let me state I am sure this not the case everywhere, but how can any data be taken for fact if the possibility of a preconceived slant can skew the outcome in the direction of expected results.

Lastly, I feel it is the right of the parent to choose the best method or means of disciplining their children. The question is how best to protect that right while preventing the idiots who should have been sterilized in the first place from physically (or mentally) maiming (or killing) their children? Another thread maybe? :slight_smile:

84

(Rubbing eyes after reading the vast diatribes above.)

Man! Some of you are experts at mentally masturbating!

It’s simple. Some of us spank our kids and some don’t and those of us who do resent the piss out of you who don’t when you try and sometimes manage to get laws to control our actions. That is when some of us who do spank wish to select a 2x4 and show you no-spank law pushers the difference between a spanking and a beating.

Not long back, a lady in a grocery store decided to spank her screaming, kicking, fighting little pest who was annoying everyone around. She slapped his well padded bottom a few times, his screaming stopped, his fighting stopped and he just cried for a bit. Some more righteous than thou customer called the cops and reported her for child abuse.

The lady was arrested. I think the customer should have been punched in the mouth.

Until a famous book came out promoting no spanking, almost everyone spanked their kids. Funny, how many of them grew up to be find people. After the book came out – and suckers believed it – and every other clone that came out of it – suddenly we’ve got a whole friggin mess. Suddenly we have CEOs and executives concerned only with money who buy up small companies and strip them for their assets, not caring a hoot about the employees. Executive perks get out of hand – like one CEO was guaranteed 6 million in severance pay if fired, plus stock options. Plus while employed he had free use of the company jet, fleet of cars, had his home paid for, was given a huge block of stock, had the best company insurance and a company charge card – the bills from which would not be looked at too closely.

One famous guy made millions going into ‘slow’ companies and straightening them out – by ruthlessly cutting long time employees, benefit packages for the workers, closing some branches and while doing so, invested in the stock knowing it would go up when he started. Once he made his pile in pay, he dumps the stock, leaves the company and goes on to ax the next one.

People who ran companies years ago were more people oriented. Plus, I have never seen such a profusion of scams on television as there are now from the well known fake psychics to exercise machines.

As for the psychiatric theories – well unfortunately psychiatry is not a set-in-concrete field in some areas. For every report you find promoting no-hit, you can find one against it. That’s like in the mass hysteria over child molestation, where people were accusing their folks of buggering them because shrinks had discovered ‘repressed memories’, it turns out they were wrong. Whether deliberately or not, most of the shrinks fed into the patient, who promptly ‘developed’ memories of being molested and convinced themselves that it actually happened when it did not.

I’m probably older than most of you. I recall when Iseinhour was President. (I like Ike were the slogans.) I’ve seen my own city go from not being on the map to becoming one of the richest cities in Florida and quadruple in growth. I recall when kids, even strangers, were respectful and polite to adults. Any adult could step in and break up a fight without fear of being sued by the parents or sassed by the kids. Mischief was playing hooky, smoking in the bathroom, stealing a couple of beers from the old man, rolling cigarettes, maybe boosting a candy bar or magazine from the drug store, sneaking into the walk in theater and smuggling friends into the drive in.

(DRIVE-IN A big, open air screen upon which a moving picture is projected, while people watch from their cars, lined up in rows on small berms, near metal poles from which astonishingly good speakers extended into car windows. A snack bar, single story, was nearby, which housed bathrooms, the projection booth and lots of wonderfully delicious junk food and sodas poured over crushed ice.)

So, I’ve been able to observe a whole lot. My jobs have placed me almost always around lots of people and the changes have been dramatic. When the big child abuse hysteria hit, the hasty development of Children’s Protection Laws screwed everything up. Now in many States, if you spank your child, you can be arrested.

Bullshit! If I have a kid and he misbehaves beyond my limits, I will spank him. I was spanked as a kid and I’m not any dismally, warped psychopath, lurking in the darkness, committing crimes because my Daddy spanked me on the poo-poo when I was young.

I actually learned that there are limits in society and go beyond them, you get hurt.

Man, even as a teen, if I had decided to go out when my Mom and Dad said no and stomped out, my Pop would have grabbed my ass and dragged me back inside. If I put up a big fuss, he’d have belted me. (Back then, in such a case, the parent could call the cops, who would come out and, upon the parents request, take the kid and poke him or her in a cell for the night to give his or her a taste of what might be awaiting him/her.) So long as I lived under my parents roof, I followed their rules.

I strongly believe in spanking. None of you have yet answered my previous questions as what do you do when talking, reasoning, time outs and all fails and your little bundle of joy still insists on causing trouble or sneaking out at night, or defies you and stomps out of the house?

So, please tell me, you no spankers, what do you do?

I know a girl with a little boy who refuses to go to bed on time. She doesn’t hit. She and her husband finally put a Dutch door on his room to keep him in there and keep an eye on him as he’d stay up and play most of the night. Then he learned to climb over the door and would disrupt the house. She used rewards, reasoning, pleasant chats with him, strict orders, commanding tone of voice, picking him up and putting him to bed, bribery and taking away things he liked.

It did not work. I told her to hit him hard enough to give his ass a crack running sideways. Do that a few times and the little bugger would behave. She wouldn’t and, that was a few years ago. He’s older now and still a pain in the ass.

So, what should she have done?

I like fires. I always have. As a camper and boy scout, I could get campfires going quicker than anyone else without dumping on a gallon of gas. As a child, we cooked out, used to burn trash in a 55 gallon drum and had fires for various reasons. I was always told to be careful around them, not to get too close or I’d get burned and, being young, I did not listen. So, I got burned a few times. Through the pain I learned (a) Mom and Dad were not kidding and (b) fire hurts!

Ever since, I’m careful with fires. I learned via pain, which is what a spanking does. It reinforces a command.

Go into the military and tell your DI to kiss your ass. He has many ways to convince you that such an attitude is wrong, most painful and all unpleasant but you learn. He aint going to sit down with you in a time out and quietly inform you why you should not tell him to kiss your ass. He aint going to stand you in a little corner either and he’s not going to be real damn considerate of your feelings.

85

Gaudere

What is the difference between the families who spank kids at earlier ages and the parents who begin later? Two possibilities: either the first group believed in spanking while the second reluctantly began out of necessity, or the first group was dealing with more disobedient kids who rebelled at an earlier age. Either way, I would expect the first group to be spanked more often at a later age, regardless of the effectiveness of spanking.

BTW, this is the first I’ve heard of spanking kids who are less than one year old.

No control group at all appears to have been used. I suspect that all these behaviours are more common at the later ages. Particularly if kids show signs of such a problem early on it is likely to increase with age. Thus kids who were spanked more early on on included a greater percentage of those who were predisposed to aggressive behaviour, who, on maturing a bit, displayed this aggression even more.

This is an open question, as noted.

This is true if the kid cannot accept parental authority. If the kid accepts that a parent is not a buddy but is instead an authority figure he will accept that a spanking from a parent is to be distinguished from that coming from another source. In particular, if the parent makes sure that the child understands why he is being spanked (as should be done, in any case).

This is similar to point 2 earlier and a similar logic prevails. If you can accept that defense of self and others is a valid exception, then there can be other exceptions as well. (I never really grasped the logic of those who make this type of argument. If you think a child will learn from his parent’s example that he can hit other people, does that mean that grounding him will teach him that he can ground other people? Any form of discipline used must be undersood to be limited to parents.)

It goes without saying that a parent who is hitting a child merely out of his own anger will produce counterproductive results.

Many or most of the alternative suggestions involve things that are not available immediately.

It sounds like you are referring to older ages. I agree that as a child ages spanking becomes less and less appropriate and other forms of punishment more and more.

A typical situation that I’m thinking of is when a parent tells a kid don’t do X. The kid wants to do it anyway. So the parent explains (if necessary) don’t do it because of Y. Kid still wants to do it. So the parent says if you do X than I will…

Now what? If the parent says I will give you a smack and the kid doesn’t listen - kid gets a smack, show over. 10 minutes later - back to normal. Next time the parent tell the kid not to do something the kid remembers “not listening=smack”. Effective discipline.

But imagine the parent says if you don’t listen you will not get desert. Kid doesn’t listen. Two hours later, at desert time, the kid vaguely remembers having committed the offence. But the kid has been a angel for the last half hour. Most parents will not even enforce the punishment. But even if they do, it will not have the same strong connection in the child’s mind to the offence committed. Next time the child is told something it will not carry the same weight.

An older child is different. As people mature, they are more able to appreciate the long term implications of their actions. A threat to take away some priviledge carries weight with a 13 year old that it does not carry with a 6 year old. So methods of discipline change.

Good point. But I think that many people who commit anti-social acts have absorbed the fact that what they are doing is wrong, but don’t have the willpower and discipline to overcome their instincts. So I would suggest that it is possible that a kid who got spanked may be absorbing to a greater degree the idea that aggression is a bad idea, but merely unable to control his increasing natural tendency towards aggression. Whan such a kid reaches an age at which tendencies toward such behaviour naturally subside, he may have absorbed these lessons enough to make him a better person.

The idea that certain actions trigger pain is not a complex one. Even animals can understand it. Even if the child thinks their parent is angry at them, as long as they understand that the anger is the result of their actions, I don’t see any harm in it.

Been a while here to. But as you have been so gracious in researching your sources, I will make an attempt to track this down when I get a chance.

I am not suggesting that only spanking works at these ages. The idea is that the child cannot grasp the rationale for doing or not doing particular actions, and understands only that his parents are forcing him to comply. At this stage, the idea of complience through reasoning is a futile one.

My guess? Because people genuinely believe they are doing what is in the best interests of their child. The claim of the anti-spanking theory is that all the smacks that these parents are delivering are futile and counterproductive. The implication of this is that these parents are hitting the children that they love for nothing. This is offensive to many people.

86

Wow. If you are asserting that any of that has anything to do with apsnking or not, you have a lot of proving to do.

No comment.

87

Gaudere,

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica

“Emotionally, children develop in the direction of greater self-awareness–i.e., awareness of their own emotional states, characteristics, and potential for action–and they become increasingly able to discern and interpret the emotions of other people as well. This contributes to empathy, or the ability to appreciate the feelings and perceptions of others and understand their point of view. These new abilities contribute to the child’s moral development, which typically begins in early childhood as concern over and avoidance of acts that attract pain and punishment and progresses to a more general regulation of conduct so as to maintain parental regard and approval. A further shift in moral reasoning to one based on the avoidance of internal guilt and self-recrimination marks the passage from childhood and adolescence to adulthood. All of these emotional advances enhance the child’s social skills and functioning.”

I believe this reflects conventionally accepted thought.

88

pldennison, actually, I somewhat over simplified. Basically, I noticed radical changes beginning as the theory caught on and increased in popularity. It did not happen over night. The book emerged around the ending of the hippie era – where so many were unwilling to follow the lifestyles of their parents and changes had already been in progress in several areas. The time was ripe for a new ‘cause.’

I might be wrong in several examples, but the sociological changes seem, in my opinion, to follow what I had observed happening first to the local kids and then nationally. Within a few years of the development of PCs and video games, I noticed more and more kids staying inside to play these things, designed by people who were in their 20s about the time the no spanking theory started.

The twenties can be a ‘dangerous’ age when one is full of energy, susceptible to ‘interesting concepts’ and one does not often consider the long term consequences of the actions of such concepts.

About the time kids got ‘hooked’ on video games, parents were not using much in the way of force to limit their time playing the things or as discipline. During this time, the games started getting ‘better’ with technology and graphics and promoters did not consider the effects bloody battles and wholesale murder might have on kids who no longer had forceable discipline.

Years later it dawned on people that bloody video games and graphic movies do have an effect on kids.

So, add that to parents often having to both work because of first spiraling prices and then later the desire for lots of luxuries and things start to get real loose in the area of authority. By then, you have a major promotion going on insisting how if you spank your kid you’re a brutal beast but if you reason with him or her, you’re an intelligent person and the sheep follow the trend.

Add in everything else I’ve mentioned and you have the results you see today once the ‘no spank’ children grow up.

An excellent example of sociological ‘stupidity’ was/is the molestation of children plague that swept the nation, which was founded initially on two lying children influenced by their conniving grandmother. Within months, accusations of day care child abuse were popping up everywhere, people were virtually being dragged through the streets. Then suddenly parents were molesting their kids in the home. Then on the streets. Then adults were discovering they had been molested in the past, but they forgot about it. Suddenly single White males were suspect if they were around young children. Fathers first could not bath alone with their young daughters anymore and then their young sons. Teachers became suspect, followed by anyone on the street.

Some time later, someone said ‘hey! Most of these kids are lying, the shrinks are nuts, the cops are fanatics and we just ruined the lives of innocent adults!’

That’s how fast a concept spreads without consideration to the repercussions, which is what happened in the no hit thing. (Of course, the molestation fear fed right into it when unthought out child protection laws came into effect.)

So, now we have kind of a mess.

You have parents who don’t hit their kids because they actually believe they’re rising above the Cro-Magnon level, parents who don’t hit their kids because they’re terrified of being tossed in jail for child abuse or molestation, parents who work too much to spank their kids, parents who don’t hit because they’re not real sure who is right and parents who believe that a smack is a parental right and screw the idiots who made the new laws.

89

But, FarTreker, it has been said on this thread that statistics show that a majority of the parents actually do spank their children (roughly 90% was mentioned.) Spanking has been alive and well. The fact that the no-spanking point of view has had so much more airtime than in the old days, didn’t change common practice. Then the mess you referred to wasn’t caused by too little spanking, as you argue.

By the way, I don’t advocate no-spanking laws. I agree that parents should decide this for themselves.

90

This is such an incredible example of sideways logic I have to respond.

First off, it is offered as a support to the inevitable need for corporal punishment. I was trained in the military by DI’s. They were members of the 82nd Airborne Division, and the 8th Special Forces Group. The training was stringent, and challenging, and the routine was specifically designed to provide ample reason to disobey the figures of authority. Never once in the entire training cycle did an NCO strike a trainee in any manner. Not once, in the many thousands of opportunities to use the adult equivalent of a spanking did these professionals have to rely on force. They don’t do it. The reason they don’t do it is that it doesn’t elicit respect, it elicits fear.

Secondly, the point is offered in a discussion of parent child relationships. The very first thing the DI told me when I got there was, “I am not your Mama!” He knew the difference, even if you do not.

Thirdly, the argument subsumes the conclusion that we should be raising our children to have the attitude of good soldiers to their superiors in all their relationships in life. That is rather bleak, and a bit frightening to consider. I hope you have no children.

Tris

91

Actually, I’m pro-choice and anti-spanking, unless you have seen me suggest outlawing spanking.

Spanking is not outlawed. Abuse is. Are you angry that child abuse is not allowed?

I still don’t see how you correlate this with lack of spanking. About 90% of parents spank. Violent criminals and juvenile delinquents were generally abused or severely physically punished. Are you claiming that the 10% of children not spanked, who are generally shown to be slightly less aggressive and anti-social than their spanked peers are the primary cause for the modern world’s ills? How does spanking small children make them not likely to buy companies for profit when they are grown?

Not really. The majority show that spanking is seems to be no more effective than other methods of discipline, and sometimes ineffective (particularly in severly spanked children). Even those studies that support spanking draw the line at “moderate” spanking, since severe and extreme spanking has never been shown to result in happy, well-behaved children.

There wasn’t a difference. That was the point; if you’ve been spanking for three years, you have kids approximately as disobedient as children who you have just started spanking. If spanking improved behavior, you would think the children who have been spanked longer would be more obedient. Is there anything that would convince you that spanking is not necessarily effective? If children are spanked for a long time and are no better or are worse than children who are spanked for a short time, you say the long-term-spanked children just must be inherently “worse”. If children who were spanked for a long time were better, you would use it for proof that spanking does work. So I am at a bit of a loss here. Spanking may work for your particular children, but does the evidence perhaps make you think that it is overused or used inappropriately in many other families? If children who were spanked were generally better behaved and got better over time, I wouldn’t claim that they are “naturally” better behaved to avoid any evidence that spanking was effective. Nor would I claim that if physically abused children turn out to be violent criminals, that the children were naturally violent and the parents were just trying to control them.

Sorry, but I don’t have to allow other exceptions because I have one specific one . The reason I make an exception for self defense is because if other people use violence against me, I have a right to defend myself. I do not believe I have the right to hit another person except to protect myself or others. It would take a hell of a lot of evidence to convince me that hitting someone smaller and weaker and less capable of comprehending the consequences of his/her actions than me is acceptable. Fortunately, according to you my lineage is naturally non-aggressive, although the holes I knocked in the wall when I was young would speak otherwise. :wink: (And my brother had the worst temper I’ve ever seen in a young child.)

It means that if he has control over a certain thing, and a person does something wrong, he can withhold that thing. For example, if I usually let my roommate use my car, and he never fills it with gas as he promised, I can refuse to let him use the car again. That is “grounding” him from the use of the car, and far more appropriate than hitting him.

Time-outs? Sending a child to his room? A stern “You should not do that. It’s wrong”? I bet you use those yourself. A lot of times, a child will get overwhelmed by a situation and letting him be alone is far better than hitting him–it’s more a remedy than a punishment. Children are not “little adults”; if you’ve taken them shopping all day, a lot of children just can’t handle it and start acting up–they’re often not deliberately “bad”, just overwhelmed. Hitting them for lacking the patience of an adult is like hitting a one-year-old who plays with his food. But I’m digressing a bit here.

I’m sorry, but hitting a child seems like an aggressive act, and if it is considered appropriate behavior by the parents, why would the child think it inappropriate? It is using physical pain and fear of pain to discourage disliked behavior, and won’t the child think it appropriate to do so? I don’t lie to people to get them to tell the truth, I don’t steal from people to make them honest, and I don’t hit them to make them not hit others.

If I stick my hand in the fire, I understand that fire hurts me and I don’t like it. When my mother hits me, I understand that my mother hurts me and I don’t like it. Physical pain does not seem like an appropriate thing to inflict on someone you love (consenting adults aside). Even as adults, we have rules for our friends, lovers and employees and enforce them–but we don’t hit. If you can use other methods effectively, why use one that is destined to obsolete and physically hurts someone you love?

Robinh managed to reason with her child still in diapers. Very young children do not reason well, I agree, but pain is not the only way to teach them not to do something. If so, we would hit one-year-olds, and I think you agree that’s too young, but that does not mean that you cannot teach the child anything at all if you can’t use pain. Sure, the kids are young enough at one year that they don’t understand reason, but you think it inappropriate to hit them. Why is it appropriate to hit them when they are a bit older? If other methods besides spanking work to discipline children–you undoubtably use them yourself, since I doubt you spank for every infraction, and non-physically-harming methods certainly worked for me–I don’t see a good reason to use pain and fear of pain to control a child.

If children who are raised with X turn out fine (unless they’re raised with a great deal of X), and children who are raised without X turn out fine, I question whether X is necessary. I may genuinely believe that, say, time-outs are best for my child, but if there was evidence that it did not work I wouldn’t get terribly upset–I’d try the other methods suggested. Using physical pain to control others is considered inappropriate behavior between adults, or from one child to another, or from a child to an adult, yet it is accepted from a parent to a child. I’d rather have a firm rule that hitting others is inappropriate except in defense, and use discilipinary thinking that can be consistently used by anyone throughout their life. The insistence that all children need to be hit–even when they’re teenagers–claimed by FarTreker and others I have met is rather disturbing.

92

**

Others here have suggested (and I pointed this out) that they would prefer it I did not spank my child. That was directed towards them more than you. They did not point out that there should be laws, but they did say things which implied that they were perfectly happy to tell me how I should raisemy kids even though I never said how they should raise theirs.

**

I am angry that people call what I advocate for me and my family to be categorized as abuse.

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, one day, 18 hours, 12 minutes and 36 seconds.
5510 cigarettes not smoked, saving $688.79.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 10 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]

93

Well, as I noted before, this is a public message board with a topic on spanking. I’m sure Poly would prefer it if I converted to Christianity. I’m sure Libertarian would prefer it if I became a libertarian. I’m sure FarTreker would prefer it if I walloped my kids. I’m sure oldscratch would prefer it if I became a communist. I’m sure FriendofGod would prefer it if I accepted Jesus as my savior. I’m sure manhattan would prefer it if people didn’t steal MP3s. I don’t get angry at people for preferring that I do/believe something other than what I currently do/believe–we spend most of our time on this board telling people what we think is the best thing to do. :smiley: This is not even such a private topic as religious beliefs; no one can outlaw religious beliefs, but the treatment of children is considered to be a somewhat “public” issue.

Satan, that wasn’t directed at you, but at FarTreker, who seems to believe that the fact that abuse is outlawed somehow infringes on his freedom to discipline his child. Read the part of his post that I responded to.

94

Gaudere:

I acknowledge the dilemma. Nonetheless I continue to maintain that all my points are valid. They point to what may indeed be an insurmountable difficulty in truly isolated the effects of spanking alone, without other factors. (This type of problem afflicts many fields of psychology). My only purpose in all this is to say that the studies are inconclusive. At that point my common sense and experience rule (for me, at least).

Of course many people overuse spanking. I know this without “evidence”, having seen this with my own eyes. Many people beat their kids to a pulp. I am more interested in which path is the best one to follow. I don’t feel obligated to defend anything that any person might have done.

It’s not a matter of right. You had made the claim that a child could be tought to use violence by spanking. To that I respond that you yourself acknowledge that a child is capable of making distinctions between different circumstances, some of which allow physical force, some of which do not.

Of course there are many forms of discipline. In a given situation one may be more appropriate than another. But if your car needs an oil change and you give it a tune-up, you are not helping things. Flexibility is what is needed, and your approach seems to be the less flexible one.

When a child is at an age when he is too young to understand why he is being hit, it is inappropriate to hit him. It serves no disciplinary purpose. When a child begins to understand the reason for his being hit, it becomes appropriate.

You are easily within your rights to question this. But you also asked why people are so vehement about spanking. I supplied an answer. I believe Satan’s answer was along the same lines.

95

Gaudere:

I am quite aware this is a public message board. However, this kind of issue - where there is evidence for both sides, anecdotal, individual and statistical, which will say different things - is a personal decision.

There is a difference between saying “I believe this way,” and “you should believe this way,” even if you might think it best for others to believe as you do.

It is the difference between Polycarp and FriendofGod in how they represent their faith.

If you don’t see the difference between “I am not going to spank my kids,” and adding the caveat, “and you shouldn’t either,” I don’t know what to say here.

Oh, and saying that “I’m sure FarTreker would prefer it if I walloped my kids” is a bit disingenuous. He never said anything of the sort. Personally, I hope I never spank my kids either, as I said before.

I think that FarTreker has gone a bit far with what he advocates, but I don’t have to agree with every nuance to be essentilly on the same side.

I have not complained about people saying “I’m not going to hit my kids.” What I did complain about - go back and see, please - is people saying that I needed to be “weaned” from something and “prayers to God that I change my mind.”

As far as this goes…

All I can say is that it’s a public message board (just as you said to me) and I think I can react to something you typed even if it’s not directed specifically towards me, can’t I?

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, one day, 19 hours, 12 minutes and 20 seconds.
5512 cigarettes not smoked, saving $689.00.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 20 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]

96

I suppose the fact that I believe hitting a child is not the best form of discipline makes me less flexible. I also believe calling the child names or lying to them is not a good thing either. I believe children can be raised well without fearing physical pain from their parents. It is possible I’ll get a child that will not respond in any other way besides fear of pain, but I rather doubt it. ::shrug:: Given that most children respond to other forms of discipline, I see no need to automatically add in physical pain as a controller.

If I think option A is best, why is it wrong to say so? We give our reasoning in the hopes of convincing the other side, because, well, we think they should believe like we do if their opinion on this matter affects us. That’s why this is Great Debates, not Great Statements of Personal Opinion That Are All Inherently Equally Valid.<grin> Even Poly talks of the evidence for the resurrection, and thinks that we should admit that something extrodinary must have happened–he’s just not as cruddy a debater as FoG. :wink: He respects my atheism, but he still thinks I’m wrong and would prefer it if I were a Christian. I respect the parent’s rights, but I just think spanking is less effective than other methods, and given an open forum I will state my opinion. Child-rearing is something we do all have a right to be concerned about, too, since these kids will one day be members of society–I don’t tell all people that they should be an atheist, or an empiricist or whatever–but if someone is doing something that will impact me, I have a right to speak up, although I won’t speak out about a parent’s method of discipline unless invited or their conduct is abusive. You, or FarTreker or IzzyR or anyone else can try to convince me that I should spank my kids, if I’m in a public forum. I don’t have to read the thread, after all.

No, nor has Libertarian ever said “I would prefer it if you were a libertarian”, but his statements clearly state that he would. “I consider those who believe that a hand should never be laid on a child are nuts, wimps, potentially bad parents and drastically misled by society mass media hysteria” and “I want to make sure that you understand that I promote spankings” sounds a lot like “I would prefer it if you walloped your kids”.

Um, yeah, but if you apparently react to something that I did not say, allow me to think that you misunderstood me. Why quote me and then respond if you did not think I was saying that spanking was child abuse?

97

No, Satan. What is disingenous is to continue to attribute to people views they once expressed (out of their own stupidity, mind you), but then publically retracted with repeated and sincere apologies.

I agree with what you say about not having to subscribe to every nuance in order to essentially share someone’s position. But when all “nuances” point essentialy in one direction, the actual stand is pretty clear, and you very well bloody know it.

I submit that FarTreker would very much prefer if I and everybody else walloped our kids. Not only is this implied by his general tone, but he said it himself.

Emphasis mine. Apparently you glossed ever this one, too, didn’t you.

I obviously have my flaws, Satan. I can take hard, easy, subtle, or blunt flaming, whenever it’s fair, and guess what, I did and will change my views or attitude when I realize they are non-sensical.

So please cut me some slack, and stop quoting me for views I no longer represent.

98

Gaudere:

If you don’t see the difference between the two extremes, I’m afraid we have reached an impasse. There is a difference between saying, “This is right for me,” and “This is right for you.”

If this is something like Republican or Democrat, Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, then sure, you might think, “Gee, I wish everyone felt like I do on this one,” even if you don’t specifically state it. (And even with that, there’s a right and a wrong way to go about expressing this.)

But this is not that. This is no different than a debate on “Should I let my kid play football,” in my opinion. I can say, “Well, i played football, and I didn’t get hurt,” and you can say, “My brother broke a leg, I don’t think it’s good for a kid to play a contact sport,” but you’re not going to see this branch off into You should listen to me! Football is evil! Your kid is doomed if you let him play football… DOOMED I SAY!, are you?

If we were to put the exact words of others into that argument, we would have someone “praying for God to show you that football is horrible,” and that “you should wean yourself away from football,” directed towards other people.

lambda:

You’re right about FarTreker. He does seem to be advocating other people smack their kids. I do not agree with this at all. Unless he can come along and defend himself, I’ll say that I think both sides are wrong! :slight_smile: I’m such a centrist…

As for quoting the views of yours, I am using them as examples of how people do think on this. People do think as you wrote and retracted without retraction.

You retracted them from YOU, and every time I have brought it up, I did not attribute them to you.

For the record, I don’t think you personally feel that way since you clarified it to me. However, I do think that thre are people who do feel that way, and I talk of the attitude, not you when I bring it up.

My apologies for the misunderstanding…

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, one day, 21 hours, 10 minutes and 16 seconds.
5515 cigarettes not smoked, saving $689.41.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 35 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]

99

That’s okay.

100

My parents used to spank me, until they discovered something far worse than spanking:

They forced me to go to a therapist who practiced Wilhelm Reich’s “vegetotherapy” (what Reich later called “medical orgone therapy”). It involves attacking areas of the body where supposedly tensed-up muscles “store your pent-up emotions”. If something the therapist does hurts, they count it as a “hit” and go after it even harder. It’s like a combination of Rolfing and Acupressure, but about a hundred times more painful.