As I said, I was being sarcastic about the “kiddy beater” thing. I should have included a :rolleyes:. I’m sorry for any offense.
I hope you’ll understand me when I say that I just can’t see that there’s any loving way to strike my child, just like there’s no loving way to strike my wife.
I don’t want to arrest people for spanking with their hands, but I definitely think there’s always a better alternative.
As you can guess from my other post, I have a very hard time looking at this issue objectively, however.
I will assume, as you seem to exhibit the native intelligence to operate a web browser and register and post here, that this is just some form of humor that I am not getting. Or did you want to clarify what seems to be some statement that I am wrong?
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Whipping kids with a belt is child abuse, even for your own kids. Threatening to inflict bodily harm on someone else’s child is assault. Call the cops and report everything you know. Call CPS too. This woman is a criminal and should not be entrusted with children.
People like you are the problem with this country: Nosy busybodies who look for the slightest reason to accuse some one of being a criminal and have them arrested and jailed.
You have obviously never had a belt taken to your entire backside, until you are bloody and bruised, and get a demerit in P.E. the next few days, because you are too embarrassed to let everyone see the welts and bruises up and down your legs…
I could go on…but you just dont “GET IT”
Pity.
It’s not humor, but apparently you aren’t getting it.
Hitting a child after he does something will get him to associate physical pain with getting caught. “I better not cross the street,” he thinks, “because my dad will whup me.”
But why do you want him to stay out of the street? Because it makes you hit him? No, because the street is a dangerous place. He would be better served by learning why the street is dangerous, than simply associating the street with bruises and pain.
Obviously some children are too young to understand, and attempting to reason with them is pointless. I’m assuming Jonnie is old enough to speak in complete sentences and knows the meaning of “danger”.
Abuse is wrong, but let’s get one thing clear about corporal punishment. The purpose is to associate bad behavior with pain, not with injury. Hence the goal is to inflict pain but not injury (and of course not too much pain).
Our oldest daughter is too young really to need corporal punishment–I can still physically carry her if I need to. And she responds to my voice very well. Hopefully I’ll never need to discipline her more harshly. But I’ve talked a lot with a friend whose daughter sometimes doesn’t respond to words, and he finds a switch to be more effective than the hand for spanking–it stings, but doesn’t inflict injury. To have the same detterring effect, a hand spanking could cause a bruise. So IMO your distinction between just using the hand and an implement is simply wrong.
A child can learn both that she/he shouldn’t go into the street because the street is dangerous and she/he shouldn’t go into the street because her/his parents will punish him. She/he can learn that going into the street is bad for many reasons.
It is not the either/or situation that Mr2001 keeps painting.
Indeed, there are even more false dichotomies there. Why can’t you yell “NO!” in scenario two? Why can’t you snap talking cinnamon sticks in scenario one? Why can’t you hurt him, then lecture him, and have tea?
I decided to forgo those questions and just answer the dichotomy as it was posed. Given the choice between hurting my hypothetical kid and teaching him to avoid a dangerous situation, I choose the latter.
Originally posted by PunditLisa
Better start the therapy fund now while your little victim is merely a thought.
Sorry. Assumed you were childless.
What the fuck my answer means is that there are quite a number of ways to mess up kids. Beating them til they’re black and blue is certainly one of them. COMPLETELY over-reacting to situations and becoming the neighborhood jerk is another. You don’t have to use fists to be a jerk.
Dragongirl had not even given the neighbor, an adult she entrusted enough to watch her kids, a chance to DEFEND herself before coming out with both fists. Other people suggested she go trample the woman’s flowers because she had the AUDACITY to yell at the kids to keep off her flowers. And you took the cake by suggesting she report the woman for child abuse.
If you cannot see that these are all irrational OVERreactions to the situation, then you need help. Because had Dragongirl actually involved the police, I GUARANTEE YOU that they would have turned into the neighborhood pariahs. And her kids would have paid the dearest price for her reaction. Do you think any other parent in that neighborhood or school would ever allow their kids to play with children whose parents call the cops on them for YELLING at them?
The child in the OP was NOT a victim by any stretch of the imagination. Why in the world would you be insistent upon turning her into one?
I guess my point would be that i’d rather he stayed out of the street period until he learned that it was dangerous. if pain or the threat of it keeps him safe until he develops an understanding on his own, i can live with it.
You say that all a child will learn from corporal punishment is not to get caught.
By your logic then, any punishment wouldn’t work if not explained afterwards. Time outs, groundings, it’s all for naught because the child will still associate punishment with getting caught.
As long as the parent talks to the child afterwards and explains why what the child did is wrong, I don’t see the difference between different types of punishments. Therefore, the decision should be based on whats most effective with that particular child.
After ALL of my punishments (be it grounding, spanking, being screamed at for 20 minutes straight) my mother would sit me down and we would talk, and we would be okay.
So your whole theory doesn’t really make any logical sense.
