# Does Spanking kids Work?



## dukect45

This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of. 

But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1GJsCa_4G8]Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube[/ame]

Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems



> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Father&#8217;s high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.



Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse



> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.


----------



## skye

I worked for me.

Thank you Dad!


----------



## BobPlumb

Spanking is just one of many tools for disciplining children.  I include " a slap on the hand" in the spanking categorie since it involves physically striking a child.  That said, a whack on the bottom or a slap on the hand should mostly be phased out in favor of other forms of dicipline such as "time out" or taking toys away by age 5 or 6.  If a kid needs encouragement to properly serve his time in "time out" ,  it may be an appropriate time to warm the child's rear end to remind him who is boss and to insure compliance with the alternative forms of dicipline.

Most importantly don't promise consequencies that you don't intend to keep and also award good behavior and show lots of love to your children.


----------



## Big Black Dog

I certainly had my share of spankings when I was a kid growing up.  Depending on who you talk to, I am normal.


----------



## boedicca

Yes, in moderation, it works.


----------



## Noomi

There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.

And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.


----------



## USNavyVet

I think spanking on the rear is fine as long as it's the last resort and is not done while angry. A friend of mine really has it down. He has 3  girls and the oldest acts up a lot so she gets a lot of time outs. At some point, when the time out is used multiple times for the same issue during the same day, she may get a smack on the butt but it's not often. And I've never seen him lash out or even raise his voice other than to get the girl's attention. 

The main issue to make sure you never reprimand the kids when you're angry. I think people tend to overreact.


----------



## Wolfsister77

I have a 4 year old. I was spanked as a child and I remember it vividly. I do not spank my daughter. Time outs, taking away toys, taking away things she likes to do, etc. seems to work for now. She says sorry if she does something she shouldn't and always wants a hug. The only time I ever get really mad at her is if safety is an issue. Playing too close to the street or messing with the dogs too much or other dogs or going too close to the stove. I supervise her but there is still danger. She knows I mean business just with a raised voice and a stern talking to.


----------



## BobPlumb

Wolfsister77 said:


> I have a 4 year old. I was spanked as a child and I remember it vividly. I do not spank my daughter. Time outs, taking away toys, taking away things she likes to do, etc. seems to work for now. She says sorry if she does something she shouldn't and always wants a hug. The only time I ever get really mad at her is if safety is an issue. Playing too close to the street or messing with the dogs too much or other dogs or going too close to the stove. I supervise her but there is still danger. She knows I mean business just with a raised voice and a stern talking to.



Kids are wired differently.  Some kids are sensitive to a raised voice or a stern look.  Others don't give a shit and you have to be more stern with them.  If the other discipline tools work for your daughter and you, then spanking is certainly not necessary.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Noomi said:


> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.



Exactly right. 

There is never a reason or an excuse to hit a child.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anyone adult that hits a child in any way, shape, or form under any circumstances should be publicly tortured to death.


----------



## percysunshine

Situational thought experiment;

Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.

Do you... 

A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.

B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.

C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.

??


----------



## BobPlumb

percysunshine said:


> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??



A and C are practically the same answer for a 4 year old.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

percysunshine said:


> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??



Are you trying to make a case for hitting a four year old?


----------



## Gracie

There is a big difference between spanking and beating. I was spanked once by my dad. I was beaten often by my mother. I didn't turn into a serial killer.
I also spanked my kids. I never beat them. They, too, are normal.


----------



## Gracie

percysunshine said:


> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??



I would yank that little brat off the stove and smack that pudgy little hand. If she cried and stomped her feet and reached again...since that is what kids tend to do, I would smack her plump little butt with my flat hand..which WOULD hurt me more than her since she probably has diapers on underneath her jeans.


----------



## percysunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make a case for hitting a four year old?
Click to expand...


Not at all. I am just conducting an experiment. A, B, or C.


----------



## Wolfsister77

BobPlumb said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 4 year old. I was spanked as a child and I remember it vividly. I do not spank my daughter. Time outs, taking away toys, taking away things she likes to do, etc. seems to work for now. She says sorry if she does something she shouldn't and always wants a hug. The only time I ever get really mad at her is if safety is an issue. Playing too close to the street or messing with the dogs too much or other dogs or going too close to the stove. I supervise her but there is still danger. She knows I mean business just with a raised voice and a stern talking to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kids are wired differently.  Some kids are sensitive to a raised voice or a stern look.  Others don't give a shit and you have to be more stern with them.  If the other discipline tools work for your daughter and you, then spanking is certainly not necessary.
Click to expand...


She is very sensitive if mommy is mad at her. She doesn't like it and will cry and get upset so I don't get mad unless I really need to. It works for her. She's a mommy's girl. Like I said, she will say she's sorry too. It may change as she gets older but at her age, it works.


----------



## Wolfsister77

percysunshine said:


> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??



A would work very well for my 4 year old daughter. Not that there is any way she can climb on the stove.


----------



## Gracie

Wish my kids would have been like yours, wolfsister. Mine were boys...and obnoxious when in their terrible twos.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Gracie said:


> Wish my kids would have been like yours, wolfsister. Mine were boys...and obnoxious when in their terrible twos.



I think I got lucky with her. She has her moments but then I just give her a time out. So far, I've been lucky but you are right. This wouldn't work on all kids. And I also agree that beating a child is never a good idea. A slap on the butt is not beating and can be very effective. I've never had to do that, luckily. Fingers crossed.


----------



## bianco

SuperNanny never hits a child.


----------



## Noomi

percysunshine said:


> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??



Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.

They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.


----------



## percysunshine

bianco said:


> SuperNanny never hits a child.



Young children can run faster than former Mayor Bloomberg.


----------



## Gracie

bianco said:


> SuperNanny never hits a child.



SuperNanny is an idiot.


----------



## Gracie

Noomi said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
Click to expand...


Um. I think I would rather smack that grasping little hand than let it get a 3rd degree burn. At least, not on MY watch. Butts are for flat open palms. Mine  felt my paw a few times. Then I didn't need to any more. The Look Of Death, aka Evil Eye worked better than anything. But they were older then too.


----------



## skye

bianco said:


> SuperNanny never hits a child.



supernanny my eye!


----------



## blackhawk

Like many things it depends on how you do it at least for me you give the child a warning tell them if they continue to act up and misbehave they will get spanked if they stop they won't and if you have to spank them explain to them why they got the spanking don't just whip them and let it go at that.


----------



## syrenn

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Does NOT spanking a kid work?  


there is a difference between beating and abusing a child.... to spanking.


----------



## PredFan

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes it does. I spanked my girls when they were still in diapers. Didn't hurt them but it scared them. After that all I had to do was raise my hand and they immediately obeyed.

My kids were always well behaved and now as adults they are happy and successful.


----------



## BobPlumb

I need to learn how to post YouTube videos.  I would love to post Eric Cartman's experience with the nannies and with the dog whisperer.


----------



## Katzndogz

Spanking works just fine.


----------



## syrenn

BobPlumb said:


> I need to learn how to post YouTube videos.  I would love to post Eric Cartman's experience with the nannies and with the dog whisperer.


 [MENTION=44536]BobPlumb[/MENTION]

its easy

go to youtube

find what you want

copy the URL

paste into reply box


----------



## BobPlumb

[ame=http://youtu.be/nnRmjZE1rvQ]South Park: Cartman being a dick on Nanny 911 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vandalshandle

Anyone who has to strike a child to get his attention is seriously lacking in paranting skills. I never spanked my daughter, but her knowing that she had let me down and disappointed me hurt her more than any spanking ever could.

She is now 30 years old, engaged, a sucessfull RN, and happy. She told me that she will never spank her child either.


----------



## Mr. H.

skye said:


> I worked for me.
> 
> Thank you Dad!



You're self-employed?

My ex never hesitated to vent her anger on our boys. Sometimes slapping them in the face. When I confronted her, she replied "don't tell me how to raise my children". 
I smacked their butts on occasion, but never in the face. 

My wife (and myself) never ever physically reprimanded our daughter. 

Long story short- they all turned out peachy.


----------



## BobPlumb

Mr. H. said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked for me.
> 
> Thank you Dad!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're self-employed?
> 
> My ex never hesitated to vent her anger on our boys. Sometimes slapping them in the face. When I confronted her, she replied "don't tell me how to raise my children".
> I smacked their butts on occasion, but never in the face.
> 
> My wife (and myself) never ever physically reprimanded our daughter.
> 
> Long storey short- they all turned out peachy.
Click to expand...


So far those that say they don't spank their kids have girls.  Hmmmmmmmm.......


----------



## AquaAthena

*Does Spanking kids Work?*

Sometimes, yes....sometimes, no. It depends upon the emotional makeup of the child. Mom always used a switch on our bottom legs. The tortuous part was my brother and I had to go out an get the switch, from a tree and often that took many trips, as the first few were usually unacceptable in size. 

She was a tender soul and I am sure the switching that stung, hurt her much more than it did us.  

We turned out just fine, with no noticeable negative results, from our rearing. I thank them, both.


----------



## Connery

Depends on the kid and depends on the parenting style. Spanking gets a message across and hopefully the right message.


----------



## jon_berzerk

*Does Spanking kids Work?*

yup


----------



## USNavyVet

Noomi said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
Click to expand...


That, my dear, is child abuse. Please don't reproduce. Thank you.


----------



## Noomi

USNavyVet said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my dear, is child abuse. Please don't reproduce. Thank you.
Click to expand...


It is not child abuse. How many times do you slap the child before the child understands not to touch? Or let the child touch what is hot, knowing that you can care for them afterward, and that they will never go near that stove top again?

I remember my neighbours child, who was about three at the time, always putting her fingers in the doorjam of the wardrobe. She was told repeatedly to remove her fingers, because they would get stuck in it. She refused to listen to our warnings. So we let her leave her fingers in the door, and closed the door on her fingers.

After she screamed her head off, and a cuddle from mum, she never, ever stuck her fingers in the doorjam ever again.

Child abuse? Hell no.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I was spanked by both parents and am arguably a well-adjusted considerate person. On the other hand, studies do indicate negative outcomes. So I think it's dependent on child-rearing methods overall moreso than solely whether you spank or not. 

Properly implemented, negative reinforcement while less-effective than positive, can indeed work. But if it's done properly, it shouldn't be a life-long thing as kids learn what gets a spanking and what gets rewarded. Nor should the spank be about pain but rather an 'attention getter.' To be effective, negative reinforcement has to be done immediately after an undesired behaviour. So the 'you just wait until your father gets home' wont cut it. That's then merely punitive punishment, but not effective training. To result in learning what's proper, spanks need to be done immediately so the child associates the punishment with the undesireable behaviour.


----------



## Politico

Yep.


----------



## USNavyVet

Noomi said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, my dear, is child abuse. Please don't reproduce. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not child abuse. How many times do you slap the child before the child understands not to touch? Or let the child touch what is hot, knowing that you can care for them afterward, and that they will never go near that stove top again?
> 
> I remember my neighbours child, who was about three at the time, always putting her fingers in the doorjam of the wardrobe. She was told repeatedly to remove her fingers, because they would get stuck in it. She refused to listen to our warnings. So we let her leave her fingers in the door, and closed the door on her fingers.
> 
> After she screamed her head off, and a cuddle from mum, she never, ever stuck her fingers in the doorjam ever again.
> 
> Child abuse? Hell no.
Click to expand...


Allowing a child to burn themselves while you watch is child abuse. That isn't even negotiable. Anyway, not derailing this thread.


----------



## editec

Well it certainly works _for something_.

Question is what does spanking kids work toward?


Would any of you object if I pointed out the obvious?

That spanking does not have the same effect on every kid?

Now I realize that this place exists in a world of BLACK AND WHITE, but this place in no way represents the real world.


----------



## Votto

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That's because spanking does not work.   

Beating them, however.........


----------



## SayMyName

I don't think it does in the long term, but I suppose it depends on what are definition of "work" is.


----------



## Billo_Really

Corporal punishment is child abuse.


----------



## zeke

Does spanking work for who? For the kid? It didn't work so well for me. But I wasn't "spanked" so much as beat with a belt. Those welts! My Dad would have gone to jail today. Back in the 60ties? Nah. Hell men barely went to jail for beating their wives half to death.

Might have been ok IF I had been smart enough to keep from getting that belt more than once. But not me. Or IF I had had enough sense to cry out. But no. I was gonna take that beating like a man and not cry. No matter how much it hurt.

I do remember when I got big enough to say that I was through with that belt. My Dad was surprised. But he didn't beat me anymore. My Dad was also a crazy alcoholic.

Did beating me with a belt help me? LMAO. No.  I would have still been an asshole even if I hadn't been whipped like that. It's in my nature.

I raised three kids. All fine and dandy. I smacked one kid one time with my open hand.
Felt so bad I cried for days. But I didn't let my kid know. That's what my beatings gave me; empathy.

I did like to use the index finger flip. That "thunk" did get their attention when it wandered some where it shouldn't have been.

Don't beat your kids with a belt. You will go to jail. And it won't really do your kids any good. And you will feel bad for it. Someday.

A deep, stern voice, an evil eye and a good finger thump will do the trick for punishment much better. Take it from an old guy who was beat.


----------



## Spoonman

yes, I think absolutely it does.  you don't beat the hell out of your kids, but the occasional wack as a wakeup call or attention getter makes the point.


----------



## Agit8r

The practice is some 300 year behind the times.


"Such a sort of slavish discipline makes a slavish temper. The child submits, and dissembles obedience, whilst the fear of the rod hangs over him; but when that is remov'd, and by being out of sight, he can promise himself impunity, he gives the greater scope to his natural inclination; which by this way is not at all alter'd, but, on the contrary, heighten'd and increas'd in him; and after such restraint, breaks out usually with the more violence; or... If severity carry'd to the highest pitch does prevail, and works a cure upon the present unruly distemper, it often brings in the room of it a worse and more dangerous disease, by breaking the mind; and then, in the place of a disorderly young fellow, you have a low spirited moap'd creature, who, however with his unnatural sobriety he may please silly people, who commend tame unactive children, because they make no noise, nor give them any trouble; yet at last, will probably prove as uncomfortable a thing to his friends, as he will be all his life an useless thing to himself and others."

-- *John Locke*; from 'Some Thoughts Concerning Education' (1692)


----------



## Vandalshandle

Spanking sends a message. The message is that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical pain. In short, this is how bullies are born. It is also a fact that those who are victims of physical abiuse as a child tend to abuse children themselves as they grow up.


----------



## Montrovant

Vandalshandle said:


> Spanking sends a message. The message is that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical pain. In short, this is how bullies are born. It is also a fact that those who are victims of physical abiuse as a child tend to abuse children themselves as they grow up.



Wouldn't any form of discipline send the message that if you are bigger than someone else it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical or emotional pain?


----------



## blackhawk

editec said:


> Well it certainly works _for something_.
> 
> Question is what does spanking kids work toward?
> 
> 
> Would any of you object if I pointed out the obvious?
> 
> That spanking does not have the same effect on every kid?
> 
> Now I realize that this place exists in a world of BLACK AND WHITE, but this place in no way represents the real world.



What spanking works toward is teaching kids that actions have consequence's sometimes negative ones I would also point out that the more passive form of discipline like timeouts also does not work on every kid as you correctly point out it's not a black and white or one size fits all world.


----------



## BobPlumb

Montrovant said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking sends a message. The message is that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical pain. In short, this is how bullies are born. It is also a fact that those who are victims of physical abiuse as a child tend to abuse children themselves as they grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't any form of discipline send the message that if you are bigger than someone else it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical or emotional pain?
Click to expand...


Interesting point!


----------



## Sarah G

I never believed in hitting the little ones.  I watched mine like a hawk until they were old enough to understand then I talked their little heads off until they got it. My daughter accused me of being over protective when she was about 8.  Imagine that.  

She probably wished I'd have hit her instead.


----------



## BobPlumb

Are there any parents of boy's that never use physical discipline?  So far to my knowledge everyone on this thread that never use physical disipline have girls.


----------



## Sarah G

BobPlumb said:


> Are there any parents of boy's that never use physical discipline?  So far to my knowledge everyone on this thread that never use physical disipline have girls.



I wouldn't raise my hand to a little boy either.  To me, it's the easy way out, you have to make them understand what it is you want them to stop doing, not that you can win by hitting them.


----------



## asterism

Noomi said:


> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.



You can't make such broad-brushed absolutes.  Your mental issues may have been exacerbated by abuse, but spanking is not the cause.  I was spanked quite a bit and I deserved every single lick.  I rarely spank my own kids but sometimes it's the only thing to get their attention.  I have one child I've never spanked because it wouldn't work on her if I did.

I've seen parents who look down on anyone for spanking kids use cruel emotional abuse, bullying tactics, and withholding affection as forms of punishment.  Those are much more damaging than a smack on the butt.

The key to discipline is to do it all out of a position of love instead of anger, to educate children on the reasons and consequences, and to let them make and learn from mistakes early.


----------



## Iceweasel

There's a difference between spanking and abuse. If you don't know the difference then you shouldn't do it. People used to spank more and the kids used to be better behaved. Coincidence?

I moved from NYC in the late 60s to the deep south where spanking was still permitted in school. Guess which schools had less problems?


----------



## asterism

Noomi said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, my dear, is child abuse. Please don't reproduce. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not child abuse. How many times do you slap the child before the child understands not to touch? Or let the child touch what is hot, knowing that you can care for them afterward, and that they will never go near that stove top again?
> 
> I remember my neighbours child, who was about three at the time, always putting her fingers in the doorjam of the wardrobe. She was told repeatedly to remove her fingers, because they would get stuck in it. She refused to listen to our warnings. So we let her leave her fingers in the door, and closed the door on her fingers.
> 
> After she screamed her head off, and a cuddle from mum, she never, ever stuck her fingers in the doorjam ever again.
> 
> Child abuse? Hell no.
Click to expand...


That is scary.  Kids can lose fingers in doors (happened to my son) and burns can lead to massive infection which can be fatal.  Also, if a you let a kid "learn a lesson" by letting him stick a fork in a wall plug it could kill him.

Yes, that would be child abuse in this country.


----------



## Mojo2

*Does Spanking kids Work???*

You better believe they do!!!

They work like beavers when you spank em!












j/k


----------



## asterism

Vandalshandle said:


> Spanking sends a message. The message is that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical pain. In short, this is how bullies are born. It is also a fact that those who are victims of physical abiuse as a child tend to abuse children themselves as they grow up.



If that's true then does sending a child to her room send a message that forced imprisonment is okay?


No.


----------



## Montrovant

Noomi said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, my dear, is child abuse. Please don't reproduce. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not child abuse. How many times do you slap the child before the child understands not to touch? Or let the child touch what is hot, knowing that you can care for them afterward, and that they will never go near that stove top again?
> 
> I remember my neighbours child, who was about three at the time, always putting her fingers in the doorjam of the wardrobe. She was told repeatedly to remove her fingers, because they would get stuck in it. She refused to listen to our warnings. So we let her leave her fingers in the door, and closed the door on her fingers.
> 
> After she screamed her head off, and a cuddle from mum, she never, ever stuck her fingers in the doorjam ever again.
> 
> Child abuse? Hell no.
Click to expand...


So spanking should never be done, but allowing a child to possibly get severe burns or broken fingers is fine?


----------



## Jarlaxle

AquaAthena said:


> *Does Spanking kids Work?*
> 
> Sometimes, yes....sometimes, no. It depends upon the emotional makeup of the child. Mom always used a switch on our bottom legs. The tortuous part was my brother and I had to go out an get the switch, from a tree and often that took many trips, as the first few were usually unacceptable in size.
> 
> She was a tender soul and I am sure the switching that stung, hurt her much more than it did us.
> 
> We turned out just fine, with no noticeable negative results, from our rearing. I thank them, both.



More likely: she was a twisted pervert getting her jollies torturing her children.


----------



## Jarlaxle

zeke said:


> Does spanking work for who? For the kid? It didn't work so well for me. But I wasn't "spanked" so much as beat with a belt. Those welts! My Dad would have gone to jail today. Back in the 60ties? Nah. Hell men barely went to jail for beating their wives half to death.[



Sounds like my father...well, my father preferred a 2x4, a skillet, or a broom handle.  It stopped when I confronted him with a loaded, cocked shotgun!



> Might have been ok IF I had been smart enough to keep from getting that belt more than once. But not me. Or IF I had had enough sense to cry out. But no. I was gonna take that beating like a man and not cry. No matter how much it hurt.
> 
> I do remember when I got big enough to say that I was through with that belt. My Dad was surprised. But he didn't beat me anymore. My Dad was also a crazy alcoholic.
> 
> Did beating me with a belt help me? LMAO. No.  I would have still been an asshole even if I hadn't been whipped like that. It's in my nature.
> 
> I raised three kids. All fine and dandy. I smacked one kid one time with my open hand.
> Felt so bad I cried for days. But I didn't let my kid know. That's what my beatings gave me; empathy.
> 
> I did like to use the index finger flip. That "thunk" did get their attention when it wandered some where it shouldn't have been.
> 
> Don't beat your kids with a belt. You will go to jail. And it won't really do your kids any good. And you will feel bad for it. Someday.
> 
> A deep, stern voice, an evil eye and a good finger thump will do the trick for punishment much better. Take it from an old guy who was beat.



You broke the cycle, congratulations.  Most do not.


----------



## Jarlaxle

blackhawk said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it certainly works _for something_.
> 
> Question is what does spanking kids work toward?
> 
> 
> Would any of you object if I pointed out the obvious?
> 
> That spanking does not have the same effect on every kid?
> 
> Now I realize that this place exists in a world of BLACK AND WHITE, but this place in no way represents the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What spanking works toward is teaching kids that actions have consequence's sometimes negative ones I would also point out that the more passive form of discipline like timeouts also does not work on every kid as you correctly point out it's not a black and white or one size fits all world.
Click to expand...


I know a couple of people whose children learned that when you're strong enough, pounding the shit out of a parent is just dandy!  Someone my wife works with got a lesson in that: after years of whippings, his daughter (14 or 15, I think) decided it was done: she put a pan on the stove, heated it...and poured two gallons of boiling water on her sleeping father.


----------



## peach174

The vast majority of baby boomer's were spanked. Spanked , not hit or slapped , not belts or switches. Belts and objects like paddles or switches are remembered by the very young child and does real harm to their bodies and mentally.
Spanking only,done mostly at ages 1 yr. to 3 yr's. and done few and far between or it becomes ineffective. It has to be done at a young age. Why? Because the child does not start to really remember things until after 4 (unless it was very traumatic experience), so they don't fear their parents from that simple spanking discipline, but they have learned what is wrong and right by that time.
By the time we were 4 we minded our parents and had respect for elders and those in authority.
The majority turned out just fine.

Every once in a blue moon when you did something really, really wrong when you got older you got spanked, but usually just the threat worked. 
Now that parenting authority has been taken away where most yell at their older children, the discipline is done at too late of an age and we have a bunch of spoiled rotten brats.


----------



## Antares

Noomi said:


> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.



....and you spend all of your waking moments blaming your parents for everything that is wrong with your life.....it sounds more like you are Bi-Polar than any effect the spanking had.

Yes spanking works.


----------



## blackhawk

Jarlaxle said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it certainly works _for something_.
> 
> Question is what does spanking kids work toward?
> 
> 
> Would any of you object if I pointed out the obvious?
> 
> That spanking does not have the same effect on every kid?
> 
> Now I realize that this place exists in a world of BLACK AND WHITE, but this place in no way represents the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What spanking works toward is teaching kids that actions have consequence's sometimes negative ones I would also point out that the more passive form of discipline like timeouts also does not work on every kid as you correctly point out it's not a black and white or one size fits all world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a couple of people whose children learned that when you're strong enough, pounding the shit out of a parent is just dandy!  Someone my wife works with got a lesson in that: after years of whippings, his daughter (14 or 15, I think) decided it was done: she put a pan on the stove, heated it...and poured two gallons of boiling water on her sleeping father.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between giving a child a spanking for acting up and child abuse which is what it sounds like the kids your talking about were subjected to sadly for whatever the reason some parents cant distinguish between the two.


----------



## bianco

Gracie said:


> bianco said:
> 
> 
> 
> SuperNanny never hits a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperNanny is an idiot.
Click to expand...



SuperNanny is very wise;


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z40TEkshZvk]Supernanny The Wischmeyer Family - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BDBoop

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not belts. No.


----------



## NoNukes

Luddly Neddite said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.
> 
> There is never a reason or an excuse to hit a child.
Click to expand...


I agree, it is violence and abusive. How could anyone hit someone they love?


----------



## Spoonman

spare the rod, spoil the child.  there is a lot of truth to that one.


----------



## bianco

The high school principal, in his office, flogged me on the hands with a cane, he was angry, raised the cane above his head 6 times...because at assembly, outside in the humid Sydney morning summer sun, I looked at my watch while he was talking.
I was about 16.

After I left school, I, along with a whole lot of other kids who'd been flogged with canes by angry teachers..."discipline"...embarked on a crusade to rid schools of floggings/corporal punishment. 
We succeeded.
No more floggings/corporal punishment, no more canes, all gone!
Schools and teachers didn't like the idea of being sued for assault etc.

There are ways to discipline children other than hitting them with canes, iron cords, belts, slapping/punching them in the head [some cultures]etc.

In biancoland you can legally tap a toddler on the bottom or legs with an open hand as discipline...that's all.
Tap.
Anything else, stand by for the cops to arrive and/or if in the mall you be verbally instructed by the public as to your sin.


----------



## bianco

Spoonman said:


> spare the rod, spoil the child.  there is a lot of truth to that one.



Rod the child, including into their early teens, speak to them like they're dirt...first chance they get they'll move to the other end of the nation, and take their little kids with them.


----------



## oldfart

BobPlumb said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked for me.
> 
> Thank you Dad!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're self-employed?
> 
> My ex never hesitated to vent her anger on our boys. Sometimes slapping them in the face. When I confronted her, she replied "don't tell me how to raise my children".
> I smacked their butts on occasion, but never in the face.
> 
> My wife (and myself) never ever physically reprimanded our daughter.
> 
> Long storey short- they all turned out peachy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far those that say they don't spank their kids have girls.  Hmmmmmmmm.......
Click to expand...


Put me down for two boys that I never spanked who turned out OK.  Many a night I came home from work to a living room full of sleeping bags for a sleepover.  You could tell which boys got "whupped" a lot.


----------



## oldfart

BobPlumb said:


> Are there any parents of boy's that never use physical discipline?  So far to my knowledge everyone on this thread that never use physical disipline have girls.



OK, discipline is part of family culture.  In my father's family, no one used corporal punishment except in rare cases.  My father never did.  My brother and I have five children, all boys, and we have six grandchildren, three of them boys.  To the best of my knowledge, none of them were physically disciplined by their fathers.  The few cases where mothers resorted to physical discipline did not turn out well.  

I don't buy the argument that some kids require physical discipline.  I have 45 years in as a Boy Scout leader and have met some youth who needed the attention of the criminal justice system, but never one I was convinced would be better by the use of physical discipline.  Most parents learn their parenting skills from their parents, and I have meet some fine parents who used physical discipline.  Most of them used physical discipline only at an early age, mainly as a token of disapproval (which was the main effect), and made sure their kids knew the parents loved them.  I also don't put that in the category of abuse.  

But I believe that if new parents thought out what their expectations for their children were, what they wanted them to grow into, why they want to have children, and what experiences they had in their own childhoods and how they reacted to them; most parents would find a better way than using physical discipline.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Iceweasel said:


> There's a difference between spanking and abuse. If you don't know the difference then you shouldn't do it. People used to spank more and the kids used to be better behaved. Coincidence?
> 
> I moved from NYC in the late 60s to the deep south where spanking was still permitted in school. Guess which schools had less problems?





i grew up in the deep South, and my high school wisely gave the wayward student a choice. Either three licks with a paddle or a day's suspension. It was a wise chioice because I was caught skipping school one day, and I was given that choice. If the principal had struck me with a paddle, I would have decked him.


----------



## Lipush

Noomi said:


> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.



That's true, and well said.


----------



## Lipush

Gracie said:


> There is a big difference between spanking and beating. I was spanked once by my dad. I was beaten often by my mother. I didn't turn into a serial killer.
> I also spanked my kids. I never beat them. They, too, are normal.



A spank on the rear every once in a while is not totally wrong.

I was never spanked, and at times I wish I was. But it's ok only when it's not a matter of routine and as long as it doesn't turn to violent hitting or form of education.

And I believe it depends also on the sort of spanking. On the rear it's ok, but I knew of people who spanked their 3 year old on the mouth and arms, too. That's wrong and humiliating.


----------



## Lipush

bianco said:


> SuperNanny never hits a child.



Not with the Cam's on record, she didn't.


----------



## asterism

BDBoop said:


> dukect45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not belts. No.
Click to expand...


I agree, open hand only.


----------



## asterism

Vandalshandle said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between spanking and abuse. If you don't know the difference then you shouldn't do it. People used to spank more and the kids used to be better behaved. Coincidence?
> 
> I moved from NYC in the late 60s to the deep south where spanking was still permitted in school. Guess which schools had less problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i grew up in the deep South, and my high school wisely gave the wayward student a choice. Either three licks with a paddle or a day's suspension. It was a wise chioice because I was caught skipping school one day, and I was given that choice. If the principal had struck me with a paddle, I would have decked him.
Click to expand...


Oooooooh, you're such a tough guy.


----------



## Vandalshandle

asterism said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between spanking and abuse. If you don't know the difference then you shouldn't do it. People used to spank more and the kids used to be better behaved. Coincidence?
> 
> I moved from NYC in the late 60s to the deep south where spanking was still permitted in school. Guess which schools had less problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i grew up in the deep South, and my high school wisely gave the wayward student a choice. Either three licks with a paddle or a day's suspension. It was a wise chioice because I was caught skipping school one day, and I was given that choice. If the principal had struck me with a paddle, I would have decked him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooooooh, you're such a tough guy.
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, when I was 16, I was, and I was also very angry.


----------



## Shrimpbox

Gracie and others have it right, there is a big difference between spanking and child abuse.   My wife had to raise our children a lot on her own cause I was gone a lot. The famous wooden spoon is legion in our family and spankings were seldom and done after mom and dad deliberated on the merits. What til your daddy gets home was and had to be a threat. When in public her tactic was to tell the children don't embarrass me in this rest. In front of all these people or I will rip your hair out. Mine was to grab them by the bicep lifting them up while whispering sweet nothings in their ears. We always had many complements about how well behaved our children were and it wasn't because they were cowed in fear, they just knew what the limitations were.
     In today's psychobabble universe children are supposed to be addressed as equals instead of having  a parent child relationship. I noticed with our own kids that constant yelling and empty threats pass for discipline. After a while the kids just tune them out and ignore them leading to more yelling. But there are not any discipline problems when they come to stay with Grama and papa. Makes ya wonder!
     I always marvel how in this new age we seem obligated to reinvent something that has gone on for millennia. While nothing is perfect, could we not take a page from our own history and instead of reinventing revisit the mores that created the greatest generation or is that too passe to be relevant anymore.
     My wife often tells the story of eating Sunday dinner with her parents. She was an only child and adored her father. Life was difficult back then and the meals often had a sameness to them. On this particular occasion she made the mistake of saying do we have to eat beans again. Before she finished the sentence, her father, who had been a welterweight boxer, backhanded her and sent her and the chair tumbling backwards. He never said a word and kept on eating and she never complained about eating beans again or ever forgot that experience.


----------



## Montrovant

Lipush said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between spanking and beating. I was spanked once by my dad. I was beaten often by my mother. I didn't turn into a serial killer.
> I also spanked my kids. I never beat them. They, too, are normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A spank on the rear every once in a while is not totally wrong.
> 
> I was never spanked, and at times I wish I was. But it's ok only when it's not a matter of routine and as long as it doesn't turn to violent hitting or form of education.
> 
> And I believe it depends also on the sort of spanking. On the rear it's ok, but I knew of people who spanked their 3 year old on the mouth and arms, too. That's wrong and humiliating.
Click to expand...


Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that spanking is, by definition, on the rear.


----------



## Sarah G

Montrovant said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between spanking and beating. I was spanked once by my dad. I was beaten often by my mother. I didn't turn into a serial killer.
> I also spanked my kids. I never beat them. They, too, are normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A spank on the rear every once in a while is not totally wrong.
> 
> I was never spanked, and at times I wish I was. But it's ok only when it's not a matter of routine and as long as it doesn't turn to violent hitting or form of education.
> 
> And I believe it depends also on the sort of spanking. On the rear it's ok, but I knew of people who spanked their 3 year old on the mouth and arms, too. That's wrong and humiliating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that spanking is, by definition, on the rear.
Click to expand...


Well maybe some people would rather spank them elsewhere to break the monotony.


----------



## asterism

Vandalshandle said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> i grew up in the deep South, and my high school wisely gave the wayward student a choice. Either three licks with a paddle or a day's suspension. It was a wise chioice because I was caught skipping school one day, and I was given that choice. If the principal had struck me with a paddle, I would have decked him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooooh, you're such a tough guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, when I was 16, I was, and I was also very angry.
Click to expand...


Another liberal with mental issues.  Go figure.


----------



## emilynghiem

Luddly Neddite said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.
> 
> There is never a reason or an excuse to hit a child.
Click to expand...


It depends on the child, the situation, and the parent.

I had a teacher during teacher training in public school who openly stated that the reason there was so much attention deficit in kids is they were missing discipline. the emotional and logical filters in their brains were not developed because they didn't get boundaries enforced consistently. she admitted they needed spanking when appropriate.

Now if this can be done verbally without spanking or swatting, of course that is better.

On the other hand, if a spanking on the bottom or swatting a child's hand away prevents them from burning their hand on the stove, I think it is worse to let them burn themselves.

I agree that if parents have abusive intent, those parents should never touch their children.

My dad could just raise his voice and scare me into deterrence, though it was still too much sometimes. spanking was not necessary, just expression of parental disapproval. the rage was abusive even when it was verbal and not even physical, so that could have been less.

the issue is whether it becomes a projection of personal rage or abuse.
ideally, of course, verbal reprimand is better to train children so they don't need
spanking so much. but even the best children who respond to timeouts and other
consequences get spanks every once in a while when they are testing limits of parents.
after they know the parent is consistent, they will respond to the verbal and other options.


----------



## oldfart

asterism said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooooh, you're such a tough guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, when I was 16, I was, and I was also very angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal with mental issues.  Go figure.
Click to expand...


Either you have a personal problem with Vandalshandle or someone just pooped in your fruit loops.  Either way cut it out; this is CDZ, you are sounding like a real jerk in your last two posts.


----------



## GWV5903

There is nothing wrong with spanking a child for disciplinary reasons, period...

Now beating your child is a different issue...

My wife disciplined our oldest daughter many years ago in the grocery store and a women came up to her and said it wasn't necessary to do that, my wife quickly and politely told her to mind her own business...

We have family members who for what ever reason have chosen not to enlist corporal punishment and the majority have had some issues with authority...

Needless to say, our children are respectful and well liked amongst their pier groups, corporal punishment didn't harm them... 

Do not spare the rod...


----------



## auditor0007

Noomi said:


> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.



I find your use of the word "smacked" to be interesting.  I may be incorrect on this, but it sounds to me as if you were "smacked around" as in being beaten our of pure anger.  That kind of punishment does not work and will cause more harm than good.  On the other hand, a swat on the rear end of a younger child when they are misbehaving can have a very positive effect, so long as the child understands why he/she is being punished.  Children must learn that there are consequences for bad behavior, and sometimes those consequences actually have to hurt in order to get through to the child.  Some children can be very stubborn given the opportunity.  There definitely is a fine line there, and parents must be aware of this.  Also, corporal punishment really needs to end before the age of ten.  After that point, it's pretty ineffective, imo.


----------



## Vandalshandle

asterism said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooooh, you're such a tough guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, when I was 16, I was, and I was also very angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal with mental issues.  Go figure.
Click to expand...


So, now we have been enlightened. This thread is a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Go figure.

Try to concentrate. The thread is about corporal punishment, not about your own personal political agenda.

Focus....


----------



## TemplarKormac

Does spanking kids work?

Yeah it does. So does switching, belting, fly swattering and paddling. When my full name came out of her mouth, my behind was going to get tanned. She didn't do it because she was angry, she did it because it set me straight.


----------



## Darkwind

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Father&#8217;s high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My step-son was spanked only once, and very lightly at that.  He never behaved to the point where it was required to administer a second.  The same with My two sons.  They were spanked, lightly, when they acted up, at an early enough age that the discipline did not need to be harsh to be effective.

I'm sure there are morons who will speak about any kind of spanking as if a person took out a belt and began wailing on their children.  That is not the norm, nor is it the discussion.  Use of a belt would be wrong.

However, the later in life, if that bad behavior is allowed to continue without some form of discipline, the worse that person will become later in life.  I know there are gong to idiots who say "I was never spanked and I turned out fine"....I'll flat out say, I question your honesty.....

Lastly...those who are depressed, neurotic and suffer from other mental conditions; you would still have suffered from those conditions regardless of whether you were spanked or not.  I know its easier to blame someone for you own physiology, but please don't burden the rest of us with your denial.

However, lets speak about how well children do who have been drugged.  The alternative to an unruly child for many people, seems to be to drug them into submission.  Have any of you seen a child that has been given Ritalin? The drug renders them practically inert, and unaware of their surroundings.  They are lethargic and act as if they have been on a binge.

A well placed swat on the backside of a toddler (it doesn't have to be hard) can do more good for behavior than an entire pharmacy.  And your children will grow up well mannered, focused, and happy.


----------



## oldfart

Darkwind said:


> My step-son was spanked only once, and very lightly at that.  He never behaved to the point where it was required to administer a second.  The same with My two sons.  They were spanked, lightly, when they acted up, at an early enough age that the discipline did not need to be harsh to be effective.



I would agree that such punishment is not abuse and could be effective.  



Darkwind said:


> However, the later in life, if that bad behavior is allowed to continue without some form of discipline, the worse that person will become later in life.  I know there are gong to idiots who say "I was never spanked and I turned out fine"....I'll flat out say, I question your honesty.....



I gave you the benefit of the doubt in not calling you a child abuser.  Now you are calling me a liar.  Perhaps you did not turn out as polite and reasonable as you think you did.  I would like also to know what events in my life you monitor to come to such a conclusion.  If your momma taught you right, the next post will be your apology and retraction.  



Darkwind said:


> A well placed swat on the backside of a toddler (it doesn't have to be hard) can do more good for behavior than an entire pharmacy.  And your children will grow up well mannered, focused, and happy.



Oh, I see.  You are an expert in psychiatry.  You are guaranteeing me that if I swat my toddlers they will "grow up well mannered, focused, and happy."  Could you refer me to the journals where you have published your scientific results?  And if you are wrong, who is your malpractice insurance carrier so I can file my claim?  

So your theories are subject to scientific verification.  If you can back down from your overextended position, you are a rational and well functioning human being.  If you cannot, then you obviously have some additional growing up to do.  Your choice.


----------



## Montrovant

oldfart said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> My step-son was spanked only once, and very lightly at that.  He never behaved to the point where it was required to administer a second.  The same with My two sons.  They were spanked, lightly, when they acted up, at an early enough age that the discipline did not need to be harsh to be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that such punishment is not abuse and could be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the later in life, if that bad behavior is allowed to continue without some form of discipline, the worse that person will become later in life.  I know there are gong to idiots who say "I was never spanked and I turned out fine"....I'll flat out say, I question your honesty.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt in not calling you a child abuser.  Now you are calling me a liar.  Perhaps you did not turn out as polite and reasonable as you think you did.  I would like also to know what events in my life you monitor to come to such a conclusion.  If your momma taught you right, the next post will be your apology and retraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well placed swat on the backside of a toddler (it doesn't have to be hard) can do more good for behavior than an entire pharmacy.  And your children will grow up well mannered, focused, and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  You are an expert in psychiatry.  You are guaranteeing me that if I swat my toddlers they will "grow up well mannered, focused, and happy."  Could you refer me to the journals where you have published your scientific results?  And if you are wrong, who is your malpractice insurance carrier so I can file my claim?
> 
> So your theories are subject to scientific verification.  If you can back down from your overextended position, you are a rational and well functioning human being.  If you cannot, then you obviously have some additional growing up to do.  Your choice.
Click to expand...


Not to defend or condemn Darkwind's positions, but wtf?  Where did he claim any sort of scientific background for his opinions?

And nice attempt to shame him into an apology.  If he 'backs down', he's rational and well functioning.  Otherwise.....  

I'm trying to see how your insults are more 'adult' than his.


----------



## chikenwing

TemplarKormac said:


> Does spanking kids work?
> 
> Yeah it does. So does switching, belting, fly swattering and paddling. When my full name came out of her mouth, my behind was going to get tanned. She didn't do it because she was angry, she did it because it set me straight.



When we screwed up as kids,mom would make us go cut a switch off of the Lilac bush,there were always some 3 foot suckers growing off the trunk,if you brought back a wimpy switch,it was not good.  By the time you went and got it,you had time to think and she would talk it up,hardly used the thing at all,but the whole process worked very well,we did the same thing with our kids,never really having to use a switch,just talk about it was enough.We had a paddle with killer wrote on it,all we did was threaten to go get killer and what little angles they became.


----------



## chikenwing

oldfart said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> My step-son was spanked only once, and very lightly at that.  He never behaved to the point where it was required to administer a second.  The same with My two sons.  They were spanked, lightly, when they acted up, at an early enough age that the discipline did not need to be harsh to be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that such punishment is not abuse and could be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the later in life, if that bad behavior is allowed to continue without some form of discipline, the worse that person will become later in life.  I know there are gong to idiots who say "I was never spanked and I turned out fine"....I'll flat out say, I question your honesty.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt in not calling you a child abuser.  Now you are calling me a liar.  Perhaps you did not turn out as polite and reasonable as you think you did.  I would like also to know what events in my life you monitor to come to such a conclusion.  If your momma taught you right, the next post will be your apology and retraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well placed swat on the backside of a toddler (it doesn't have to be hard) can do more good for behavior than an entire pharmacy.  And your children will grow up well mannered, focused, and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  You are an expert in psychiatry.  You are guaranteeing me that if I swat my toddlers they will "grow up well mannered, focused, and happy."  Could you refer me to the journals where you have published your scientific results?  And if you are wrong, who is your malpractice insurance carrier so I can file my claim?
> 
> So your theories are subject to scientific verification.  If you can back down from your overextended position, you are a rational and well functioning human being.  If you cannot, then you obviously have some additional growing up to do.  Your choice.
Click to expand...


There are no guaranties when it come to kids,other than if you don't discipline you will be very sorry.


----------



## NoNukes

The only time that it would ever be right to hit another person would be in self defense. I have never touched my children or threatened to do so, and they are beautiful, well behaved children. Hitting children is lazy parenting.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

We used to get hit by yardsticks, erasers, paddles with holes in them back in elementary and grade school.


----------



## oldfart

Montrovant said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> My step-son was spanked only once, and very lightly at that.  He never behaved to the point where it was required to administer a second.  The same with My two sons.  They were spanked, lightly, when they acted up, at an early enough age that the discipline did not need to be harsh to be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that such punishment is not abuse and could be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt in not calling you a child abuser.  Now you are calling me a liar.  Perhaps you did not turn out as polite and reasonable as you think you did.  I would like also to know what events in my life you monitor to come to such a conclusion.  If your momma taught you right, the next post will be your apology and retraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well placed swat on the backside of a toddler (it doesn't have to be hard) can do more good for behavior than an entire pharmacy.  And your children will grow up well mannered, focused, and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  You are an expert in psychiatry.  You are guaranteeing me that if I swat my toddlers they will "grow up well mannered, focused, and happy."  Could you refer me to the journals where you have published your scientific results?  And if you are wrong, who is your malpractice insurance carrier so I can file my claim?
> 
> So your theories are subject to scientific verification.  If you can back down from your overextended position, you are a rational and well functioning human being.  If you cannot, then you obviously have some additional growing up to do.  Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to defend or condemn Darkwind's positions, but wtf?  Where did he claim any sort of scientific background for his opinions?
> 
> And nice attempt to shame him into an apology.  If he 'backs down', he's rational and well functioning.  Otherwise.....
> 
> I'm trying to see how your insults are more 'adult' than his.
Click to expand...


To begin with, do you see anything wrong with stating in CDZ that anyone who you do not believe in a statement about their life must be a liar?  This is a violation in that it is "name-calling".  Do you disagree with that statement?  

Secondly, I used sarcasm to underline the ridiculous position taken by Darkwind in claiming knowledge of someone's life (who he does not know) in order to draw a conclusion as to the veracity of that person.  Is your objection to my use of sarcasm or to defend Darkwind's right to make absurd claims and not be called on them?

Third, I take your comment on my logical tactic of "shaming" Darkwing into an apology as a compliment.  Everyone should be given an opportunity to back down from an unsupportable position as gracefully as possible.  

As to what posts are "adult", you seem to be determined to defend outrageous personal attacks in the CDZ, a position that will destroy the CDZ (it has already done about 99% of that job).  Is that what you want CDZ to be, a refuge for touchy-feely whining about posts from others you do not know so you get to make unsupported insults on them?  

If I sound a bit irritated, it might be because CDZ has become a place for bigotry to be protected from logical attack, and I see no way to drive this kind of post out of our discourse other than by ridicule.  Would you care to suggest a better way?  

I have not insulted Darkwing.  I have exposed the weakness in his position.  If you feel that Darkwing may have overextended his position and can rightly be asked to recant it, but feel that I have been excessively abrasive, I can understand that point.  If this is the case I welcome any suggestions on how collectively we can reduce the number of such posts in a more congenial manner.  So far I haven't seen it work that way.  

Note I have made no personal attack on you or Darkwing.  I have stated by objections and reasoning to the posts you have made.  I have made apologies when called on my language before and I stand ready to do so again when shown the error of my ways.  I realize that many posters seem unable to tell the difference between an attack on the content of something they have posted and an attack on themselves.  This is unfortunate, but the solution is not to complain when someone is called on a ridiculous statement or makes a personal attack.  Do you agree?


----------



## Montrovant

oldfart said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that such punishment is not abuse and could be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt in not calling you a child abuser.  Now you are calling me a liar.  Perhaps you did not turn out as polite and reasonable as you think you did.  I would like also to know what events in my life you monitor to come to such a conclusion.  If your momma taught you right, the next post will be your apology and retraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  You are an expert in psychiatry.  You are guaranteeing me that if I swat my toddlers they will "grow up well mannered, focused, and happy."  Could you refer me to the journals where you have published your scientific results?  And if you are wrong, who is your malpractice insurance carrier so I can file my claim?
> 
> So your theories are subject to scientific verification.  If you can back down from your overextended position, you are a rational and well functioning human being.  If you cannot, then you obviously have some additional growing up to do.  Your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to defend or condemn Darkwind's positions, but wtf?  Where did he claim any sort of scientific background for his opinions?
> 
> And nice attempt to shame him into an apology.  If he 'backs down', he's rational and well functioning.  Otherwise.....
> 
> I'm trying to see how your insults are more 'adult' than his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To begin with, do you see anything wrong with stating in CDZ that anyone who you do not believe in a statement about their life must be a liar?  This is a violation in that it is "name-calling".  Do you disagree with that statement?
> 
> Secondly, I used sarcasm to underline the ridiculous position taken by Darkwind in claiming knowledge of someone's life (who he does not know) in order to draw a conclusion as to the veracity of that person.  Is your objection to my use of sarcasm or to defend Darkwind's right to make absurd claims and not be called on them?
> 
> Third, I take your comment on my logical tactic of "shaming" Darkwing into an apology as a compliment.  Everyone should be given an opportunity to back down from an unsupportable position as gracefully as possible.
> 
> As to what posts are "adult", you seem to be determined to defend outrageous personal attacks in the CDZ, a position that will destroy the CDZ (it has already done about 99% of that job).  Is that what you want CDZ to be, a refuge for touchy-feely whining about posts from others you do not know so you get to make unsupported insults on them?
> 
> If I sound a bit irritated, it might be because CDZ has become a place for bigotry to be protected from logical attack, and I see no way to drive this kind of post out of our discourse other than by ridicule.  Would you care to suggest a better way?
> 
> I have not insulted Darkwing.  I have exposed the weakness in his position.  If you feel that Darkwing may have overextended his position and can rightly be asked to recant it, but feel that I have been excessively abrasive, I can understand that point.  If this is the case I welcome any suggestions on how collectively we can reduce the number of such posts in a more congenial manner.  So far I haven't seen it work that way.
> 
> Note I have made no personal attack on you or Darkwing.  I have stated by objections and reasoning to the posts you have made.  I have made apologies when called on my language before and I stand ready to do so again when shown the error of my ways.  I realize that many posters seem unable to tell the difference between an attack on the content of something they have posted and an attack on themselves.  This is unfortunate, but the solution is not to complain when someone is called on a ridiculous statement or makes a personal attack.  Do you agree?
Click to expand...


You may not have directly insulted him, but you certainly implied insult.  And to be clear, Darkwind never actually called you or anyone else a liar.  He said he 'questioned the honesty' of someone who claimed to have never been spanked and turned out fine.  

In both cases, I think it's a kind of implied rudeness.

I realize that you didn't start it but were reacting to it.  I also can understand feeling upset or insulted by his statement; as I said, I consider it an indirect insult.  However, complaining about insults in the CDZ seems pretty pointless to me if you are doing the same in response.  To me, your statement, "If you can back down from your overextended position, you are a rational and well functioning human being. If you cannot, then you obviously have some additional growing up to do." is just as much an insult as his questioning your honesty about not being spanked.  In both cases the insult seems pretty clear to me, but there's enough wiggle room to claim it is not intended that way.

In any case, this is already becoming more of an issue than it should.  As I said at the beginning of my previous post, I wasn't trying to defend Darkwing's statements.  I'm sorry if you took it as such.


----------



## oldfart

chikenwing said:


> There are no guaranties when it come to kids,other than if you don't discipline you will be very sorry.



The research seems to be to the contrary.  If my grasp of grammar is correct you just guaranteed that any kid who was not "disciplined" will make the parent "very sorry"?  Is this about discipline in general, or is physical punishment a requirement in your experience to raise any child?


----------



## oldfart

Montrovant said:


> You may not have directly insulted him, but you certainly implied insult.  And to be clear, Darkwind never actually called you or anyone else a liar.  He said he 'questioned the honesty' of someone who claimed to have never been spanked and turned out fine.
> 
> In both cases, I think it's a kind of implied rudeness.
> 
> I realize that you didn't start it but were reacting to it.  I also can understand feeling upset or insulted by his statement; as I said, I consider it an indirect insult.  However, complaining about insults in the CDZ seems pretty pointless to me if you are doing the same in response.  To me, your statement, "If you can back down from your overextended position, you are a rational and well functioning human being. If you cannot, then you obviously have some additional growing up to do." is just as much an insult as his questioning your honesty about not being spanked.  In both cases the insult seems pretty clear to me, but there's enough wiggle room to claim it is not intended that way.
> 
> In any case, this is already becoming more of an issue than it should.  As I said at the beginning of my previous post, I wasn't trying to defend Darkwing's statements.  I'm sorry if you took it as such.



I take your point.  You are correct that there is a Kabuki theater element to this.  I try to respond as close to the tone and level of the post I find offensive as I can.  I try to make a point of what I consider sloppy posting here.  I made a gentler  chide to another post in this thread, so we get to see if it has better results.  If it does, I cheerfully back off.


----------



## jasonnfree

Depends on the kid.  I helped raise 2 nieces, and 2 of my own and now a ten year old grandson,   For some kids, getting physical is the only way to get the message across.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Spoonman said:


> spare the rod, spoil the child.  there is a lot of truth to that one.



Only to a sadistic pervert.


----------



## Jarlaxle

bianco said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> spare the rod, spoil the child.  there is a lot of truth to that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rod the child, including into their early teens, speak to them like they're dirt...first chance they get they'll move to the other end of the nation, and take their little kids with them.
Click to expand...


...or spike Sunday dinner with rat poison.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Shrimpbox said:


> Gracie and others have it right, there is a big difference between spanking and child abuse.   My wife had to raise our children a lot on her own cause I was gone a lot. The famous wooden spoon is legion in our family and spankings were seldom and done after mom and dad deliberated on the merits. What til your daddy gets home was and had to be a threat. When in public her tactic was to tell the children don't embarrass me in this rest. In front of all these people or I will rip your hair out. Mine was to grab them by the bicep lifting them up while whispering sweet nothings in their ears. We always had many complements about how well behaved our children were and it wasn't because they were cowed in fear, they just knew what the limitations were.
> In today's psychobabble universe children are supposed to be addressed as equals instead of having  a parent child relationship. I noticed with our own kids that constant yelling and empty threats pass for discipline. After a while the kids just tune them out and ignore them leading to more yelling. But there are not any discipline problems when they come to stay with Grama and papa. Makes ya wonder!
> I always marvel how in this new age we seem obligated to reinvent something that has gone on for millennia. While nothing is perfect, could we not take a page from our own history and instead of reinventing revisit the mores that created the greatest generation or is that too passe to be relevant anymore.
> My wife often tells the story of eating Sunday dinner with her parents. She was an only child and adored her father. Life was difficult back then and the meals often had a sameness to them. On this particular occasion she made the mistake of saying do we have to eat beans again. Before she finished the sentence, her father, who had been a welterweight boxer, backhanded her and sent her and the chair tumbling backwards. He never said a word and kept on eating and she never complained about eating beans again or ever forgot that experience.



Her father was a psychopath and should have been tortured to death for it.  She should have killed him for it...ideally in a horrifyingly-painful manner.  (Burning alive, ground glass in his food, drowning in raw sewage, etc.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Does spanking kids work?
> 
> Yeah it does. So does switching, belting, fly swattering and paddling. When my full name came out of her mouth, my behind was going to get tanned. She didn't do it because she was angry, she did it because it set me straight.



More likely, she did it to get her jollies, because she enjoyed it.  I wonder if pounding on you was enough to give her an orgasm...


----------



## Jarlaxle

LordBrownTrout said:


> We used to get hit by yardsticks, erasers, paddles with holes in them back in elementary and grade school.



I was hit with 2x4's, hammers, bricks, brooms, softball bats, and skillets...what's yer point?


----------



## asterism

Jarlaxle said:


> Shrimpbox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie and others have it right, there is a big difference between spanking and child abuse.   My wife had to raise our children a lot on her own cause I was gone a lot. The famous wooden spoon is legion in our family and spankings were seldom and done after mom and dad deliberated on the merits. What til your daddy gets home was and had to be a threat. When in public her tactic was to tell the children don't embarrass me in this rest. In front of all these people or I will rip your hair out. Mine was to grab them by the bicep lifting them up while whispering sweet nothings in their ears. We always had many complements about how well behaved our children were and it wasn't because they were cowed in fear, they just knew what the limitations were.
> In today's psychobabble universe children are supposed to be addressed as equals instead of having  a parent child relationship. I noticed with our own kids that constant yelling and empty threats pass for discipline. After a while the kids just tune them out and ignore them leading to more yelling. But there are not any discipline problems when they come to stay with Grama and papa. Makes ya wonder!
> I always marvel how in this new age we seem obligated to reinvent something that has gone on for millennia. While nothing is perfect, could we not take a page from our own history and instead of reinventing revisit the mores that created the greatest generation or is that too passe to be relevant anymore.
> My wife often tells the story of eating Sunday dinner with her parents. She was an only child and adored her father. Life was difficult back then and the meals often had a sameness to them. On this particular occasion she made the mistake of saying do we have to eat beans again. Before she finished the sentence, her father, who had been a welterweight boxer, backhanded her and sent her and the chair tumbling backwards. He never said a word and kept on eating and she never complained about eating beans again or ever forgot that experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her father was a psychopath and should have been tortured to death for it.  She should have killed him for it...ideally in a horrifyingly-painful manner.  (Burning alive, ground glass in his food, drowning in raw sewage, etc.)
Click to expand...


And you call someone who spanks a sadist?


----------



## chikenwing

oldfart said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no guaranties when it come to kids,other than if you don't discipline you will be very sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The research seems to be to the contrary.  If my grasp of grammar is correct you just guaranteed that any kid who was not "disciplined" will make the parent "very sorry"?  Is this about discipline in general, or is physical punishment a requirement in your experience to raise any child?
Click to expand...


So you do understand,even when you don't want to.

Its simple,you let your children raise themselves you will be sorry,or damn lucky. Discipline doesn't mean you are physically beating,as you so wish I meant.


----------



## Chaussette

Spanking kids is barbaric. If you can't raise children without beating them, you shouldn't be having children in the first place.


----------



## chikenwing

Jarlaxle said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with spanking a child for disciplinary reasons, period...
> 
> Now beating your child is a different issue...
> 
> My wife disciplined our oldest daughter many years ago in the grocery store and a women came up to her and said it wasn't necessary to do that, my wife quickly and politely told her to mind her own business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was lucky.  I would have stopped he,r, by any means necessary (with lethal force, if required).
Click to expand...


Really the internet tough guy


----------



## chikenwing

Chaussette said:


> Spanking kids is barbaric. If you can't raise children without beating them, you shouldn't be having children in the first place.



Your opinion nothing more


----------



## R.D.

Noomi said:


> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.



Because you were disciplined??   Come on, look for the real reasons for your troubles 

Been spanked and spanked.   Smart kids only need to be spanked once or twice and smart parents know that


----------



## Chaussette

chikenwing said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking kids is barbaric. If you can't raise children without beating them, you shouldn't be having children in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion nothing more
Click to expand...


Think about it, if you can't raise your children without beating them, you're simply too dumb to have children because you can't think of any other way except beating them.


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Spanking kids is barbaric. If you can't raise children without beating them, you shouldn't be having children in the first place.


I would tend to agree that liberals probably shouldn't spank their kids because they don't know the difference between spanking and beating.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking kids is barbaric. If you can't raise children without beating them, you shouldn't be having children in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> I would tend to agree that liberals probably shouldn't spank their kids because they don't know the difference between spanking and beating.
Click to expand...


Ya, because it's so cute when you call it "spanking". Sounds like 2 people in leather having fun. Does it make you horny?


----------



## chikenwing

Chaussette said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking kids is barbaric. If you can't raise children without beating them, you shouldn't be having children in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion nothing more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about it, if you can't raise your children without beating them, you're simply too dumb to have children because you can't think of any other way except beating them.
Click to expand...


Don't have to our kids are all grown well adjusted adults,with kids

Spanking and beating are worlds apart,except for people like yourself.


----------



## Chaussette

chikenwing said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion nothing more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it, if you can't raise your children without beating them, you're simply too dumb to have children because you can't think of any other way except beating them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to our kids are all grown well adjusted adults,with kids
> 
> Spanking and beating are worlds apart,except for people like yourself.
Click to expand...



Spanking is kinky sex, hitting your kids is hitting your kids.


----------



## R.D.

Chaussette said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it, if you can't raise your children without beating them, you're simply too dumb to have children because you can't think of any other way except beating them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to our kids are all grown well adjusted adults,with kids
> 
> Spanking and beating are worlds apart,except for people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is kinky sex, hitting your kids is hitting your kids.
Click to expand...


You're in the wrong thread.  Thinking about sex when disciplining children is a whole 'nother kinda sick.   Get help


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Ya, because it's so cute when you call it "spanking". Sounds like 2 people in leather having fun. Does it make you horny?


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Wake

There's a major difference between spanking and beating. 

When I was a young cub, I'd be spanked for attacking kids, stealing stuff, disrespecting people, endangering others/myself, etc, etc, etc. Getting my rump swatted helped me, hah, understand and remember that these things were not acceptable. Being young and immature with ADHD, I didn't give a darn about being "reasoned" with or chided. It didn't work. Spanking got the message through loud and clear. My father's not perfect, but I do thank him for spanking me because it taught me to not do certain things, and has kept me from getting in trouble with the law.

I will love my future children, and I fully intend to spank them in order to help them survive and thrive in society.


----------



## Chaussette

Hitting your kids is hitting your kids.


----------



## Wake

Chaussette said:


> Hitting your kids is hitting your kids.



I think you're cheapening this discussion.

Not differentiating between spanking and beating is like not differentiating between self-defense and murder.


----------



## Chaussette

Wake said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting your kids is hitting your kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're cheapening this discussion.
> 
> Not differentiating between spanking and beating is like not differentiating between murder and *self-defense*.
Click to expand...


So now you're defending yourself by hitting your kids?


----------



## Wake

Chaussette said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting your kids is hitting your kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're cheapening this discussion.
> 
> Not differentiating between spanking and beating is like not differentiating between murder and *self-defense*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're defending yourself by hitting your kids?
Click to expand...


Please reread my post and keep it in context.


----------



## Chaussette

Wake said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're cheapening this discussion.
> 
> Not differentiating between spanking and beating is like not differentiating between murder and *self-defense*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're defending yourself by hitting your kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please reread my post and keep it in context.
Click to expand...


Maybe it's you who should look up the term "self-defense", because comparing that to hitting your kids is ludicrous. Please try again.


----------



## R.D.

Wake said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're cheapening this discussion.
> 
> Not differentiating between spanking and beating is like not differentiating between murder and *self-defense*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're defending yourself by hitting your kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please reread my post and keep it in context.
Click to expand...

You're asking a lot  

I agree with your last post.  It's about consequences for actions.   As a rule I have found many left leaning  parents don't grasp that.   Instead the victim card is ever present


----------



## Wake

Chaussette said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're defending yourself by hitting your kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please reread my post and keep it in context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it's you who should look up the term "self-defense", because comparing that to hitting your kids is ludicrous. Please try again.
Click to expand...


Chausette, with respect I am asking you to please consider my post objectively.

It's not that I'm comparing spanking with self-defense, or beating your child to murder. No, that is not it. The point I am trying to convey is that you are broadly generalizing two strikingly different things. You consider spanking and beating to both be bad because, with a very huge and non-discerning brush, you consider them both as "hitting kids." It's the same as saying both self-defense and murder are wrong because it's "killing people." Or that John and Hitler are both bad people because "they eat their veggies."

The error in your logic is a faulty comparison. You have not considered all of the variables.


----------



## BillyZane

About 1/2 the people in this thread have no business being in the "adult" forum. Nearly all of them oppose spanking children. Coincidence?

Of course spanking your child is effective, unless you overdue it as a form of punishment. But that can be said about anything.

Do timeouts work? LOL


----------



## Chaussette

Wake said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please reread my post and keep it in context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's you who should look up the term "self-defense", because comparing that to hitting your kids is ludicrous. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chausette, with respect I am asking you to please consider my post objectively.
> 
> It's not that I'm comparing spanking with self-defense, or beating your child to murder. No, that is not it. The point I am trying to convey is that you are broadly generalizing two strikingly different things. You consider spanking and beating to both be bad because, with a very huge and non-discerning brush, you consider them both as "hitting kids." It's the same as saying both self-defense and murder are wrong because it's "killing people." Or that John and Hitler are both bad people because "they eat their veggies."
> 
> The error in your logic is a faulty comparison. You have not considered all of the variables.
Click to expand...

You're the one comparing apples and oranges. Hitting is hitting is hitting. What you're trying to do is to justify hitting children.


----------



## chikenwing

Chaussette said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it, if you can't raise your children without beating them, you're simply too dumb to have children because you can't think of any other way except beating them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to our kids are all grown well adjusted adults,with kids
> 
> Spanking and beating are worlds apart,except for people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is kinky sex, hitting your kids is hitting your kids.
Click to expand...


Ya ok you run with that,children discussing adult topics,your mom is calling


----------



## BillyZane

Chaussette said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's you who should look up the term "self-defense", because comparing that to hitting your kids is ludicrous. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette, with respect I am asking you to please consider my post objectively.
> 
> It's not that I'm comparing spanking with self-defense, or beating your child to murder. No, that is not it. The point I am trying to convey is that you are broadly generalizing two strikingly different things. You consider spanking and beating to both be bad because, with a very huge and non-discerning brush, you consider them both as "hitting kids." It's the same as saying both self-defense and murder are wrong because it's "killing people." Or that John and Hitler are both bad people because "they eat their veggies."
> 
> The error in your logic is a faulty comparison. You have not considered all of the variables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one comparing apples and oranges. Hitting is hitting is hitting. What you're trying to do is to justify hitting children.
Click to expand...


Seriously, the fact that you can't draw the comparison he's trying to make is sad.


----------



## Chaussette

BillyZane said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette, with respect I am asking you to please consider my post objectively.
> 
> It's not that I'm comparing spanking with self-defense, or beating your child to murder. No, that is not it. The point I am trying to convey is that you are broadly generalizing two strikingly different things. You consider spanking and beating to both be bad because, with a very huge and non-discerning brush, you consider them both as "hitting kids." It's the same as saying both self-defense and murder are wrong because it's "killing people." Or that John and Hitler are both bad people because "they eat their veggies."
> 
> The error in your logic is a faulty comparison. You have not considered all of the variables.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one comparing apples and oranges. Hitting is hitting is hitting. What you're trying to do is to justify hitting children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, the fact that you can't draw the comparison he's trying to make is sad.
Click to expand...


It's an unworkable comparison, spanking is hitting. There's no two ways about it. To try to put spanking on a different level than violence is obfuscation and sophistry.


----------



## Montrovant

It's my impression that many of those who are adamantly opposed to spanking, who equate it to beating children, etc.  were themselves abused and beaten as children.  That makes such an opinion understandable, but it does make me wonder about the possible differences in reasoning between those who were abused and those who were not that think any form of spanking is wrong.


----------



## Montrovant

Chaussette said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's you who should look up the term "self-defense", because comparing that to hitting your kids is ludicrous. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette, with respect I am asking you to please consider my post objectively.
> 
> It's not that I'm comparing spanking with self-defense, or beating your child to murder. No, that is not it. The point I am trying to convey is that you are broadly generalizing two strikingly different things. You consider spanking and beating to both be bad because, with a very huge and non-discerning brush, you consider them both as "hitting kids." It's the same as saying both self-defense and murder are wrong because it's "killing people." Or that John and Hitler are both bad people because "they eat their veggies."
> 
> The error in your logic is a faulty comparison. You have not considered all of the variables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one comparing apples and oranges. Hitting is hitting is hitting. What you're trying to do is to justify hitting children.
Click to expand...


If there are no degrees, then hitting during play is also hitting and wrong.  Is that your contention?  

I've played plenty of times with the little one and lightly hit her as part of our game; usually it will start because she decides to hit or kick me because it strikes her as funny, and eventually it leads to back and forth playful hitting.  Nothing that hurts, but hey, if hitting is hitting, right?

The little one also likes playful spanking.  Again, nothing that hurts, but she'd rather have me give playful spanks when we play than tickle her (and oh how that makes me sad, I love tickling!).  Should I equate that to spanking for discipline?  Should I equate that to abusive beatings?  Hitting is hitting is hitting.......


----------



## BillyZane

Montrovant said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette, with respect I am asking you to please consider my post objectively.
> 
> It's not that I'm comparing spanking with self-defense, or beating your child to murder. No, that is not it. The point I am trying to convey is that you are broadly generalizing two strikingly different things. You consider spanking and beating to both be bad because, with a very huge and non-discerning brush, you consider them both as "hitting kids." It's the same as saying both self-defense and murder are wrong because it's "killing people." Or that John and Hitler are both bad people because "they eat their veggies."
> 
> The error in your logic is a faulty comparison. You have not considered all of the variables.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one comparing apples and oranges. Hitting is hitting is hitting. What you're trying to do is to justify hitting children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are no degrees, then hitting during play is also hitting and wrong.  Is that your contention?
> 
> I've played plenty of times with the little one and lightly hit her as part of our game; usually it will start because she decides to hit or kick me because it strikes her as funny, and eventually it leads to back and forth playful hitting.  Nothing that hurts, but hey, if hitting is hitting, right?
> 
> The little one also likes playful spanking.  Again, nothing that hurts, but she'd rather have me give playful spanks when we play than tickle her (and oh how that makes me sad, I love tickling!).  Should I equate that to spanking for discipline?  Should I equate that to abusive beatings?  Hitting is hitting is hitting.......
Click to expand...


plus also they earlier said spanking was kinky play. If hitting is hitting is hitting in absolutes then when I spank my wife I'm being violent with her.


----------



## BillyZane

Chaussette said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one comparing apples and oranges. Hitting is hitting is hitting. What you're trying to do is to justify hitting children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the fact that you can't draw the comparison he's trying to make is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an unworkable comparison, spanking is hitting. There's no two ways about it. To try to put spanking on a different level than violence is obfuscation and sophistry.
Click to expand...


Spanking is hitting the same as self defense is to murder. In other words self defense isn't murder and spanking isn't hitting. That in no way means that spanking a child is self defense, THAT is the part that you didn't understand that made me sad, you clumsily tried to claim that the other poster was claiming that spanking their child was self defense.


Oh, and I've raised two fine young men, and am now raising two young ladies who will also be fine young ladies when they grow up, I rarely spank as a parent, but there are times when it is the appropriate punishment .


----------



## Yurt

for me personally, spanking worked a few times, but what worked all the time:

standing the corner

that makes you think about what you did


----------



## Iceweasel

Yurt said:


> for me personally, spanking worked a few times, but what worked all the time:
> 
> standing the corner
> 
> that makes you think about what you did


And if they refused to stand in the corner?


----------



## Yurt

Iceweasel said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> for me personally, spanking worked a few times, but what worked all the time:
> 
> standing the corner
> 
> that makes you think about what you did
> 
> 
> 
> And if they refused to stand in the corner?
Click to expand...


good question.  i never refused because a spanking was in the works....


----------



## BobPlumb

Iceweasel said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> for me personally, spanking worked a few times, but what worked all the time:
> 
> standing the corner
> 
> that makes you think about what you did
> 
> 
> 
> And if they refused to stand in the corner?
Click to expand...


That's when a swat on the rear end comes in handy to insure that the non physical measures work.


----------



## Asclepias

Children should never be beaten. Its a sign you cannot parent correctly if your only recourse is to beat your child.  If you raise your children correctly from jump street you would never have to beat them. As a Black man I would never beat my children simply because its learned behavior passed down from slavery.


----------



## Iceweasel

bobplumb said:


> iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> for me personally, spanking worked a few times, but what worked all the time:
> 
> Standing the corner
> 
> that makes you think about what you did
> 
> 
> 
> and if they refused to stand in the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's when a swat on the rear end comes in handy to insure that the non physical measures work.
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## asterism

Asclepias said:


> Children should never be beaten. Its a sign you cannot parent correctly if your only recourse is to beat your child.  If you raise your children correctly from jump street you would never have to beat them. As a Black man I would never beat my children simply because its learned behavior passed down from slavery.



Black people didn't beat their kids before that?

Are you sure?


----------



## Asclepias

asterism said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children should never be beaten. Its a sign you cannot parent correctly if your only recourse is to beat your child.  If you raise your children correctly from jump street you would never have to beat them. As a Black man I would never beat my children simply because its learned behavior passed down from slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black people didn't beat their kids before that?
> 
> Are you sure?
Click to expand...


I'm positive.  Black people may have popped their kids in Africa but no where near the way they do here in the states. My daughters gets their hair done by a lady from Nigeria and she commented on how crazy Americans were beating their children.  This has been echoed by a lot of Africans I have met. When I visited Senegal I never saw anyone hit their child but then again all the children were very respectful as well.


----------



## asterism

Asclepias said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children should never be beaten. Its a sign you cannot parent correctly if your only recourse is to beat your child.  If you raise your children correctly from jump street you would never have to beat them. As a Black man I would never beat my children simply because its learned behavior passed down from slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black people didn't beat their kids before that?
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm positive.  Black people may have popped their kids in Africa but no where near the way they do here in the states. My daughters gets their hair done by a lady from Nigeria and she commented on how crazy Americans were beating their children.  This has been echoed by a lot of Africans I have met. When I visited Senegal I never saw anyone hit their child but then again all the children were very respectful as well.
Click to expand...


I definitely saw lots of physical discipline by parents in Somalia and Kenya 20 years ago.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Chaussette said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one comparing apples and oranges. Hitting is hitting is hitting. What you're trying to do is to justify hitting children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the fact that you can't draw the comparison he's trying to make is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an unworkable comparison, spanking is hitting. There's no two ways about it. To try to put spanking on a different level than violence is obfuscation and sophistry.
Click to expand...


No, call it what it is: it is LYING!


----------



## Asclepias

asterism said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black people didn't beat their kids before that?
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm positive.  Black people may have popped their kids in Africa but no where near the way they do here in the states. My daughters gets their hair done by a lady from Nigeria and she commented on how crazy Americans were beating their children.  This has been echoed by a lot of Africans I have met. When I visited Senegal I never saw anyone hit their child but then again all the children were very respectful as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely saw lots of physical discipline by parents in Somalia and Kenya 20 years ago.
Click to expand...


I can only speak to where my people came from. Never been to Somalia or Kenya.  The ones I know over here dont beat their kids either.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Iceweasel said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> for me personally, spanking worked a few times, but what worked all the time:
> 
> standing the corner
> 
> that makes you think about what you did
> 
> 
> 
> And if they refused to stand in the corner?
Click to expand...


Beat them with a metal-studded belt until they cannot stand up...should take between fifty and one hundred lashes.


----------



## oldfart

Montrovant said:


> It's my impression that many of those who are adamantly opposed to spanking, who equate it to beating children, etc.  were themselves abused and beaten as children.  That makes such an opinion understandable, but it does make me wonder about the possible differences in reasoning between those who were abused and those who were not that think any form of spanking is wrong.



OK, since I stated that I did not believe all physical punishment rose to the level of child abuse, but that I felt that physical punishment was not necessary, I am not in the "many of those" category.  But I find it interesting that those defending physical punishment take one of two positions.  One is that spanking is rare, almost symbolic, never delivered in anger, and is discontinued by age six or seven.  I find this unobjectionable.  

The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.  This really implies and often is used to justify escalating violence.  If a little slap on the behind doesn't work, and you don't want Suzy to become a shiftless lazy undisciplined child, so the reasoning goes, it's time for the paddle.  If you accept the premise that physical punishment is unavoidable and the only solution when confronted with willful disobedience, then I think the conclusion of escalating violence is inevitable. 

Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there.  For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do?  And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"   

Of course there are plenty of individuals, families, and societies that raise children without much physical punishment at home, in schools, and anywhere else.  America is the anomaly in many ways.  So why the need to deny an obvious reality?  I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.  

So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing.  But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> There's a major difference between spanking and beating.
> 
> When I was a young cub, I'd be spanked for attacking kids, stealing stuff, disrespecting people, endangering others/myself, etc, etc, etc. Getting my rump swatted helped me, hah, understand and remember that these things were not acceptable. Being young and immature with ADHD, I didn't give a darn about being "reasoned" with or chided. It didn't work. Spanking got the message through loud and clear. My father's not perfect, but I do thank him for spanking me because it taught me to not do certain things, and has kept me from getting in trouble with the law.
> 
> I will love my future children, and I fully intend to spank them in order to help them survive and thrive in society.



Gotta say, I find that kind of thinking completely bizarre.  I will never forgive my father for beating me, ever, would never do it to anyone else, and it was in *no way* necessary when it happened.  It taught nothing but rage.  To crawl to one's knees and go "yes sir may I have another" after that is just ..... bizarre.  There's no other word.


----------



## Montrovant

Asclepias said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm positive.  Black people may have popped their kids in Africa but no where near the way they do here in the states. My daughters gets their hair done by a lady from Nigeria and she commented on how crazy Americans were beating their children.  This has been echoed by a lot of Africans I have met. When I visited Senegal I never saw anyone hit their child but then again all the children were very respectful as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely saw lots of physical discipline by parents in Somalia and Kenya 20 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only speak to where my people came from. Never been to Somalia or Kenya.  The ones I know over here dont beat their kids either.
Click to expand...


If you can only speak to where your people came from (and I'm not sure how you get that from visiting, but I'll pass that) why did you start by claiming to speak for black people?


----------



## Asclepias

Montrovant said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely saw lots of physical discipline by parents in Somalia and Kenya 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only speak to where my people came from. Never been to Somalia or Kenya.  The ones I know over here dont beat their kids either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can only speak to where your people came from (and I'm not sure how you get that from visiting, but I'll pass that) why did you start by claiming to speak for black people?
Click to expand...


Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.


----------



## Pogo

Vandalshandle said:


> Spanking sends a message. *The message is that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical pain*. In short, this is how bullies are born. It is also a fact that those who are victims of physical abiuse as a child tend to abuse children themselves as they grow up.



That ^^ right there.


----------



## Pogo

Katzndogz said:


> Spanking works just fine.



... says the poster who also advocates that pot smokers be shot in the face.

Coincidence?  I think not.


----------



## GISMYS

(Prov 22:15 NLT)  A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.


----------



## oldfart

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a major difference between spanking and beating.
> 
> When I was a young cub, I'd be spanked for attacking kids, stealing stuff, disrespecting people, endangering others/myself, etc, etc, etc. Getting my rump swatted helped me, hah, understand and remember that these things were not acceptable. Being young and immature with ADHD, I didn't give a darn about being "reasoned" with or chided. It didn't work. Spanking got the message through loud and clear. My father's not perfect, but I do thank him for spanking me because it taught me to not do certain things, and has kept me from getting in trouble with the law.
> 
> I will love my future children, and I fully intend to spank them in order to help them survive and thrive in society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta say, I find that kind of thinking completely bizarre.  I will never forgive my father for beating me, ever, would never do it to anyone else, and it was in *no way* necessary when it happened.  It taught nothing but rage.  To crawl to one's knees and go "yes sir may I have another" after that is just ..... bizarre.  There's no other word.
Click to expand...


This opens onto another reason I discourage physical punishment.  I have seen way to many children and adults who learned a lesson that if they were willing to endure the punishment, then the behavior that led to it was somehow OK.  It's "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" turned on its head.   It's great for training a "tough guy" mentality, which is why we see it used more with boys, but after a while they often conclude they can "get away" with anything if they are willing to accept the punishment.  It's not a big step from there to sociopathic behavior.  

And this logic parents can be teaching applies both to brutal escalating punishment and to much more moderate punishment.  It's not the degree that matters; it's the unintended message.


----------



## GISMYS

oldfart said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a major difference between spanking and beating.
> 
> When I was a young cub, I'd be spanked for attacking kids, stealing stuff, disrespecting people, endangering others/myself, etc, etc, etc. Getting my rump swatted helped me, hah, understand and remember that these things were not acceptable. Being young and immature with ADHD, I didn't give a darn about being "reasoned" with or chided. It didn't work. Spanking got the message through loud and clear. My father's not perfect, but I do thank him for spanking me because it taught me to not do certain things, and has kept me from getting in trouble with the law.
> 
> I will love my future children, and I fully intend to spank them in order to help them survive and thrive in society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta say, I find that kind of thinking completely bizarre.  I will never forgive my father for beating me, ever, would never do it to anyone else, and it was in *no way* necessary when it happened.  It taught nothing but rage.  To crawl to one's knees and go "yes sir may I have another" after that is just ..... bizarre.  There's no other word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This opens onto another reason I discourage physical punishment.  I have seen way to many children and adults who learned a lesson that if they were willing to endure the punishment, then the behavior that led to it was somehow OK.  It's "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" turned on its head.   It's great for training a "tough guy" mentality, which is why we see it used more with boys, but after a while they often conclude they can "get away" with anything if they are willing to accept the punishment.  It's not a big step from there to sociopathic behavior.
> 
> And this logic parents can be teaching applies both to brutal escalating punishment and to much more moderate punishment.  It's not the degree that matters; it's the unintended message.
Click to expand...


Do you really know more than GOD abouty children????? Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.


----------



## Pogo

Spare us the endless bible babble, K?  This is real world stuff.  Thank you.


----------



## GISMYS

Pogo said:


> Spare us the endless bible babble, K?  This is real world stuff.  Thank you.



now we see the real problem,=ignorant ""parents""===Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.


----------



## Asclepias

GISMYS said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta say, I find that kind of thinking completely bizarre.  I will never forgive my father for beating me, ever, would never do it to anyone else, and it was in *no way* necessary when it happened.  It taught nothing but rage.  To crawl to one's knees and go "yes sir may I have another" after that is just ..... bizarre.  There's no other word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This opens onto another reason I discourage physical punishment.  I have seen way to many children and adults who learned a lesson that if they were willing to endure the punishment, then the behavior that led to it was somehow OK.  It's "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" turned on its head.   It's great for training a "tough guy" mentality, which is why we see it used more with boys, but after a while they often conclude they can "get away" with anything if they are willing to accept the punishment.  It's not a big step from there to sociopathic behavior.
> 
> And this logic parents can be teaching applies both to brutal escalating punishment and to much more moderate punishment.  It's not the degree that matters; it's the unintended message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really know more than GOD abouty children????? Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.
Click to expand...


That book was written by humans not God.


----------



## GISMYS

Asclepias said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> This opens onto another reason I discourage physical punishment.  I have seen way to many children and adults who learned a lesson that if they were willing to endure the punishment, then the behavior that led to it was somehow OK.  It's "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" turned on its head.   It's great for training a "tough guy" mentality, which is why we see it used more with boys, but after a while they often conclude they can "get away" with anything if they are willing to accept the punishment.  It's not a big step from there to sociopathic behavior.
> 
> And this logic parents can be teaching applies both to brutal escalating punishment and to much more moderate punishment.  It's not the degree that matters; it's the unintended message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really know more than GOD abouty children????? Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That book was written by humans not God.
Click to expand...


wow!!! more of your ignorance!!!!------------------------------------------all scripture is inspired (God breathed) by God!!!!


----------



## Pogo

There's a solution.  Instead of spanking or whatever, send GISMYS to the kid to ramble on and on and on and on and on and on incessantly from the Babble.
Might be cruel and unusual punishment but at least it's not violence.


----------



## GISMYS

Pogo said:


> There's a solution.  Instead of spanking or whatever, send GISMYS to the kid to ramble on and on and on incessantly from the Babble.
> Might be cruel and unusual punishment but at least it's not violence.



Be a real parent=follow God's instruction or visit your child in jail or see him dead!!! your choice!!!===Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.


----------



## Asclepias

GISMYS said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really know more than GOD abouty children????? Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That book was written by humans not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow!!! more of your ignorance!!!!------------------------------------------all scripture is inspired (God breathed) by God!!!!
Click to expand...


Your religion is a knock off of the Egyptian fable of Ausar, Auset, and Heru. They predate Christianity by thousands of years. Go look it up if you doubt me.


----------



## GISMYS

Asclepias said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That book was written by humans not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow!!! more of your ignorance!!!!------------------------------------------all scripture is inspired (God breathed) by God!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religion is a knock off of the Egyptian fable of Ausar, Auset, and Heru. They predate Christianity by thousands of years. Go look it up if you doubt me.
Click to expand...


Why come here and show the message board your ignorance???? GOD AND GOD'S WORD IS ETERNAL, GOD is outside time!!


----------



## Pogo

Asclepias said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That book was written by humans not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow!!! more of your ignorance!!!!------------------------------------------all scripture is inspired (God breathed) by God!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religion is a knock off of the Egyptian fable of Ausar, Auset, and Heru. They predate Christianity by thousands of years. Go look it up if you doubt me.
Click to expand...


True but don't let him hijack the thread.  Do it in the religion forum.


----------



## Asclepias

GISMYS said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow!!! more of your ignorance!!!!------------------------------------------all scripture is inspired (God breathed) by God!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion is a knock off of the Egyptian fable of Ausar, Auset, and Heru. They predate Christianity by thousands of years. Go look it up if you doubt me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why come here and show the message board your ignorance???? GOD AND GOD'S WORD IS ETERNAL, GOD is outside time!!
Click to expand...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yK3EdnC9Vs]Hidden History of The Nile - Religious Evolution & The Holy Trinity - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

Asclepias said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only speak to where my people came from. Never been to Somalia or Kenya.  The ones I know over here dont beat their kids either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can only speak to where your people came from (and I'm not sure how you get that from visiting, but I'll pass that) why did you start by claiming to speak for black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.
Click to expand...


So whites don't beat their kids?  Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves?  I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.

I'm white.  I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup.  Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.  I'm very curious to hear, actually.  Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking sends a message. *The message is that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical pain*. In short, this is how bullies are born. It is also a fact that those who are victims of physical abiuse as a child tend to abuse children themselves as they grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ^^ right there.
Click to expand...


As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them.  Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains.  Should parents never discipline then?

More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind.  I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point.  It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country.  Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking sends a message. *The message is that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them by inducing physical pain*. In short, this is how bullies are born. It is also a fact that those who are victims of physical abiuse as a child tend to abuse children themselves as they grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ^^ right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them.  Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains.  Should parents never discipline then?
Click to expand...


The conclusion doesn't follow.  Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force.  Beating does.  If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.



Montrovant said:


> More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind.  I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point.  It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country.  Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?



Obviously, that's the message.  Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it.  Some never reconcile.
It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place.  This could be step one.

As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too.  George Washington died from it.  Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".


----------



## asterism

oldfart said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my impression that many of those who are adamantly opposed to spanking, who equate it to beating children, etc.  were themselves abused and beaten as children.  That makes such an opinion understandable, but it does make me wonder about the possible differences in reasoning between those who were abused and those who were not that think any form of spanking is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, since I stated that I did not believe all physical punishment rose to the level of child abuse, but that I felt that physical punishment was not necessary, I am not in the "many of those" category.  But I find it interesting that those defending physical punishment take one of two positions.  One is that spanking is rare, almost symbolic, never delivered in anger, and is discontinued by age six or seven.  I find this unobjectionable.
> 
> The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.  This really implies and often is used to justify escalating violence.  If a little slap on the behind doesn't work, and you don't want Suzy to become a shiftless lazy undisciplined child, so the reasoning goes, it's time for the paddle.  If you accept the premise that physical punishment is unavoidable and the only solution when confronted with willful disobedience, then I think the conclusion of escalating violence is inevitable.
> 
> Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there.  For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do?  And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"
> 
> Of course there are plenty of individuals, families, and societies that raise children without much physical punishment at home, in schools, and anywhere else.  America is the anomaly in many ways.  So why the need to deny an obvious reality?  I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.
> 
> So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing.  But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.
Click to expand...


I'll answer this even though I fall into the category you listed as "unobjectionable."

If spanking doesn't work (due to the kid being THAT hard-headed or that spanking just doesn't work on the kid) then things must change fundamentally.  Kid won't keep the fork out of the light socket even after a spanking?  Cut the power to his room and use battery-powered lights.  Kid won't stay away from the stove?  He's locked in the bedroom when anyone is cooking.  Kid won't stop eating dog shit?  Keep her inside.  Kid won't stop messing with the dog?  Get rid of the dog.

In all of those cases the reason to try spanking is because it so often works without having to rearrange entire lifestyles, and because when spanking is effective it is indeed rare.  Long time-outs, weeks of time in solitary  - or worse weeks of time with direct adult micromanagement and correction can be psychologically damaging.  A proper swat on the butt isn't.  The key is to not do it first and not do it if it doesn't immediately work.

I agree that not all nor even most kids need to be spanked, I've got one of those.  But there are a shit-ton of kids that have never been spanked and really need to.  It'd fix them right up if done correctly.


----------



## asterism

Asclepias said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only speak to where my people came from. Never been to Somalia or Kenya.  The ones I know over here dont beat their kids either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can only speak to where your people came from (and I'm not sure how you get that from visiting, but I'll pass that) why did you start by claiming to speak for black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.
Click to expand...


But it's not.


----------



## asterism

oldfart said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a major difference between spanking and beating.
> 
> When I was a young cub, I'd be spanked for attacking kids, stealing stuff, disrespecting people, endangering others/myself, etc, etc, etc. Getting my rump swatted helped me, hah, understand and remember that these things were not acceptable. Being young and immature with ADHD, I didn't give a darn about being "reasoned" with or chided. It didn't work. Spanking got the message through loud and clear. My father's not perfect, but I do thank him for spanking me because it taught me to not do certain things, and has kept me from getting in trouble with the law.
> 
> I will love my future children, and I fully intend to spank them in order to help them survive and thrive in society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta say, I find that kind of thinking completely bizarre.  I will never forgive my father for beating me, ever, would never do it to anyone else, and it was in *no way* necessary when it happened.  It taught nothing but rage.  To crawl to one's knees and go "yes sir may I have another" after that is just ..... bizarre.  There's no other word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This opens onto another reason I discourage physical punishment.  I have seen way to many children and adults who learned a lesson that if they were willing to endure the punishment, then the behavior that led to it was somehow OK.  It's "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" turned on its head.   It's great for training a "tough guy" mentality, which is why we see it used more with boys, but after a while they often conclude they can "get away" with anything if they are willing to accept the punishment.  It's not a big step from there to sociopathic behavior.
> 
> And this logic parents can be teaching applies both to brutal escalating punishment and to much more moderate punishment.  It's not the degree that matters; it's the unintended message.
Click to expand...


That's why it's good to have more than one form of punishment and to keep the goal in mind - to teach the kids how to make decisions for themselves.

My oldest daughter still remembers the time I said I was counting to five and said, "No TV for a month" on "two." 

"Three, four, five.  What?  I didn't tell you when I'd take the TV away, I told you to stop yelling and that I was counting to five."  That got her attention.

Now I use that cell phone as a means to teach her.  She REALLY hates losing that.  Soon I'll get her addicted to something else, car keys.


----------



## asterism

GISMYS said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare us the endless bible babble, K?  This is real world stuff.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now we see the real problem,=ignorant ""parents""===Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.
Click to expand...


Physical discipline does not always mean spanking.  I have my son run laps to get his Roblox back.  Another daughter has to pull weeds to get her Roku back.


----------



## Asclepias

Montrovant said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can only speak to where your people came from (and I'm not sure how you get that from visiting, but I'll pass that) why did you start by claiming to speak for black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whites don't beat their kids?  Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves?  I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.
> 
> I'm white.  I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup.  Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.  I'm very curious to hear, actually.  Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?
Click to expand...


Couple of things.  I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this.  However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks.  If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down.  I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery.  There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage.  I forgot the author.  I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.

Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy


----------



## Asclepias

asterism said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can only speak to where your people came from (and I'm not sure how you get that from visiting, but I'll pass that) why did you start by claiming to speak for black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not.
Click to expand...


Yes but it is.  Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right.  I am aware of it.


----------



## Chaussette

GISMYS said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta say, I find that kind of thinking completely bizarre.  I will never forgive my father for beating me, ever, would never do it to anyone else, and it was in *no way* necessary when it happened.  It taught nothing but rage.  To crawl to one's knees and go "yes sir may I have another" after that is just ..... bizarre.  There's no other word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This opens onto another reason I discourage physical punishment.  I have seen way to many children and adults who learned a lesson that if they were willing to endure the punishment, then the behavior that led to it was somehow OK.  It's "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" turned on its head.   It's great for training a "tough guy" mentality, which is why we see it used more with boys, but after a while they often conclude they can "get away" with anything if they are willing to accept the punishment.  It's not a big step from there to sociopathic behavior.
> 
> And this logic parents can be teaching applies both to brutal escalating punishment and to much more moderate punishment.  It's not the degree that matters; it's the unintended message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really know more than GOD abouty children????? Prov 22:15 NLT) A youngsters heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away. IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD YOU WILL DISCIPLINE HIM.
Click to expand...


So now god wants you to beat your child. Geez, will your stupidities quoting a book never end?


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ^^ right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them.  Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains.  Should parents never discipline then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow.  Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force.  Beating does.  If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind.  I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point.  It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country.  Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's the message.  Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it.  Some never reconcile.
> It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place.  This could be step one.
> 
> As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too.  George Washington died from it.  Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".
Click to expand...


Such a blanket statement is rather inane though.  That is not the only message that spanking can send and I think that declaring it so is completely off base.  I have spanked my eldest three times and physical punishments do have their place though I dont see many uses for term.  

All three of those times were in direct relation to violent behavior  two to others and one in general while throwing a fit that would not be contained.  The message is clear to him  violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.

Further, as pointed out through this thread, children are not of the same mold.  They do not react the same to given discipline or reward.  To state blankly that spanking leads to X is to completely gloss over this fact.  Limiting a parents toolkit (other than abuse) without any knowledge of the child itself is asinine to say the least.  I dont pretend to know what is best for other parents and their children because I am well aware of the fact that I do NOT know what is best.  I know that I dont need to spank my youngest.  I also know that my eldest needs something extra at times.  They are each different and require different disciplinary actions.  If that is so obvious within the same household within brothers I can only imagine how different others children may or may not be.


----------



## Agit8r

Corporal punishment likely made sense in a society that punished relatively minor crimes with death.  If it made the child a timid and submissive subject it might well have kept them alive.

In a society which demands self-governance, it is poorly suited.


----------



## Iceweasel

oldfart said:


> The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.


Who said that? The point was that some kids need it sometimes. 


> Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there.  For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do?  And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"


That made no sense. A spanking probably won't instantly turn the child into a model citizen. You could use your argument about any form of punishment. What do you mean "if it doesn't work"? Growing up is a process, it doesn't happen in a day.     


> I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.


I posit that kids are more undisciplined than ever so your theory is a bunch of bull.  


> So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing.  But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.


Looks like you picked an extreme view to argue with, although I must have missed the individual that said that.


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? The point was that some kids need it sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there.  For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do?  And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That made no sense. A spanking probably won't instantly turn the child into a model citizen. You could use your argument about any form of punishment. What do you mean "if it doesn't work"? Growing up is a process, it doesn't happen in a day.
> 
> 
> 
> I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posit that kids are more undisciplined than ever so your theory is a bunch of bull.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing.  But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you picked an extreme view to argue with, although I must have missed the individual that said that.
Click to expand...


No kid needs to be spanked or beat. You just need to release your frustration at your inability to handle the situation. Stop being lazy and parent.

The post makes complete sense. If beating or spanking is your first resort you have nowhere to go from there. If a child is willful you will not break them with physical punishment. It will only serve to make them mean and or sneaky.

Kids today are undisciplined because they are not taught respect for themselves and others. You dont have to beat them to teach them respect. Remember your job is teach your child to grow up and be a productive adult.  Your job is not to intimidate bully them or be their best friend. Some people let their kids run wild with no restrictions or punishment. Others physically abuse them. Both methods are wrong.


----------



## Iceweasel

Asclepias said:


> No kid needs to be spanked or beat. You just need to release your frustration at your inability to handle the situation. Stop being lazy and parent.


Stop being a retard. Your inability to distinguish between spanking and beat isn't someone elses fault.


> The post makes complete sense. If beating or spanking is your first resort you have nowhere to go from there. If a child is willful you will not break them with physical punishment. It will only serve to make them mean and or sneaky.


Except that it's been going on since the dawn of man. So your opinion can be dismissed for what it is.


> Kids today are undisciplined because they are not taught respect for themselves and others. You dont have to beat them to teach them respect. Remember your job is teach your child to grow up and be a productive adult.  Your job is not to intimidate bully them or be their best friend. Some people let their kids run wild with no restrictions or punishment. Others physically abuse them. Both methods are wrong.


Sounds a lot like you weren't spanked. Spoiled, smug, self righteous, etc. XXX XXXXX All the signs of the undisciplined child.


----------



## candycorn

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


After about age 5 or 6 in most kids, spanking has no effect.  Discipline is all about removing "satisfiers".  At 5 or 6 pain free living is the best satisfier.  When you become a bit older, you have other satisfiers as you develop interest.  So as a parent, you remove those which has a more acute effect.  

Basically it's like feeding someone the same meal for 10 years early in life....when they don't know there is any other food out there, they like it. When  they realize there are other things to eat, they gravitate toward the "forbidden fruit"

The goal of a parent or disciplinarian is to find the fruit and forbid it to modify behavior.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kid needs to be spanked or beat. You just need to release your frustration at your inability to handle the situation. Stop being lazy and parent.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being a retard. Your inability to distinguish between spanking and beat isn't someone elses fault.
> 
> 
> 
> The post makes complete sense. If beating or spanking is your first resort you have nowhere to go from there. If a child is willful you will not break them with physical punishment. It will only serve to make them mean and or sneaky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that it's been going on since the dawn of man. So your opinion can be dismissed for what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Kids today are undisciplined because they are not taught respect for themselves and others. You dont have to beat them to teach them respect. Remember your job is teach your child to grow up and be a productive adult.  Your job is not to intimidate bully them or be their best friend. Some people let their kids run wild with no restrictions or punishment. Others physically abuse them. Both methods are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds a lot like you weren't spanked. Spoiled, smug, self righteous, etc. XXX XXXXX all the signs of the undisciplined child.
Click to expand...

Anyone who hits children is a loser.


----------



## Agit8r

I know that I was spanked plenty as a child.  I'll let others judge whether I turned out "okay"


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Anyone who hits children is a loser


Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kid needs to be spanked or beat. You just need to release your frustration at your inability to handle the situation. Stop being lazy and parent.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being a retard. Your inability to distinguish between spanking and beat isn't someone elses fault.
> 
> 
> 
> The post makes complete sense. If beating or spanking is your first resort you have nowhere to go from there. If a child is willful you will not break them with physical punishment. It will only serve to make them mean and or sneaky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that it's been going on since the dawn of man. So your opinion can be dismissed for what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Kids today are undisciplined because they are not taught respect for themselves and others. You dont have to beat them to teach them respect. Remember your job is teach your child to grow up and be a productive adult.  Your job is not to intimidate bully them or be their best friend. Some people let their kids run wild with no restrictions or punishment. Others physically abuse them. Both methods are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds a lot like you weren't spanked. Spoiled, smug, self righteous, etc. XXX XXXXX All the signs of the undisciplined child.
Click to expand...


If I were not able to distinguish between the 2 i would not have listed them separately.  How did you miss that obvious paradox in your logic when you quoted my sentence?

Lots of things have gone on since the dawn of time. You inability to evolve would render you extinct if we didn't have a place in our society for those unable to process complex issues.  Normally you would be put down as a hinderance to the progress of the human race.

Funny you associate all those things with me.  I'm told i am one of the coolest people on earth to be around.  I do know people that lack confidence in themselves frequently express those same views of people that intimidate them. Do i intimidate you a little bit?


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hits children is a loser
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.
Click to expand...


Everyone knows the difference.  However physically striking a child regardless of it being a beating or spanking is unnecessary and yes could be construed as loser behavior.


----------



## Iceweasel

Asclepias said:


> If I were not able to distinguish between the 2 i would not have listed them separately.  How did you miss that obvious paradox in your logic when you quoted my sentence?


Well duh Einstein. Who agrees with beating children? Why mention it if you aren't equating the two like the others here?


> Lots of things have gone on since the dawn of time. You inability to evolve would render you extinct if we didn't have a place in our society for those unable to process complex issues.  Normally you would be put down as a hinderance to the progress of the human race.


And lots of smug assholes died because they weren't as smart as they thought they were.


> Funny you associate all those things with me.  I'm told i am one of the coolest people on earth to be around.  I do know people that lack confidence in themselves frequently express those same views of people that intimidate them. Do i intimidate you a little bit?


Sure. When I order fries I'll be watching to make sure you don't spit on them.


----------



## Chaussette

Asclepias said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hits children is a loser
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone knows the difference.  However physically striking a child regardless of it being a beating or spanking is unnecessary and yes could be construed as loser behavior.
Click to expand...


In other words, weasel is a loser.


----------



## candycorn

Clean debate zone...


----------



## Chaussette

So Candy, what's the "clean" word for someone so pathetic that they hit children?


----------



## eflatminor

dukect45 said:


> But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive



Self fulfilling findings...false conclusion.  OF COURSE kids that were spanked did less well in school...the very fact they had to be spanked is a predictor of future bad behavior.  That does not however, mean the THREAT of spanking isn't a good deterrent to bad behavior.

My father would have beat the crap out of me if I crossed certain lines.  I knew it.  Guess what?  I didn't cross those lines and was therefore never spanked.  Subsequently, I did very well in school and had no aggression problems.  See how that works?


----------



## oldfart

Iceweasel said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? The point was that some kids need it sometimes.
Click to expand...


That specific sentence was based on many conversations I have participated in IRL.  The statement that physical punishment is necessary to proper child rearing has explicitly been made in this thread several times.  If you you want to confirm that, they are not hard to find.  So I am not answering a straw man (and I wish it were a straw man!).  



Iceweasel said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there.  For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do?  And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"
> 
> 
> 
> That made no sense. A spanking probably won't instantly turn the child into a model citizen. You could use your argument about any form of punishment. What do you mean "if it doesn't work"? Growing up is a process, it doesn't happen in a day.
Click to expand...


Any corrective action has failed when the child does not appropriately modify their behavior.  Sometimes this requires some time to determine.  If Johnny throws things at his sister and is corrected, and subsequently does not throw things at his sister, the correction was successful.  This is true even if Johnny throws a tantrum and rolls on the floor screaming when corrected.  I don't think we are in disagreement here.  



Iceweasel said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I posit that kids are more undisciplined than ever so your theory is a bunch of bull.
Click to expand...


First, I was sloppy in my language.  I meant to say "those who insist that physical punishment is required to rear children successfully" rather than "those who defend physical punishment".  IOW my objection is not with parents using and defending physical punishment, but with those who argue that it is required to rear children properly.  

Most kids were spanked, so if they are undisciplined, spanking does not seem to correct them.  I know of many highly successful, happy, self-confident, and productive individuals who were never physically disciplined as a child.  You seem to persist in thinking that these people do not exist.  Why do you spend so much effort trying to deny this existence?  Does it threaten you to admit they exist?  

I have no problem with parents who use limited physical punishment for correction with young children.  I think it has drawbacks, and there are better methods, but I won't condemn those who use it or argue that their children are irreparably damaged.  There can be more than one style of parenting that works.  Why are you defending the extremist position?  And isn't this the very position you started your post with by accusing me of creating it as a straw man?  

Why not just admit that some parents don't use physical punishment and that it can work out?  That doesn't mean that you or anybody else needs to do so also.  And why blame the perceived ills of society on this issue?  



Iceweasel said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing.  But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you picked an extreme view to argue with, although I must have missed the individual that said that.
Click to expand...


If it's so extreme, why are you arguing for it?


----------



## Pogo

Asclepias said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whites don't beat their kids?  Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves?  I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.
> 
> I'm white.  I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup.  Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.  I'm very curious to hear, actually.  Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couple of things.  I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this.  However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks.  If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down.  I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery.  There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage.  I forgot the author.  I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.
> 
> Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy
Click to expand...


While you're correct about slave beatings being used as intimidation, I think the general practice is far older.  We're a sadistic society.  By "we" I don't just mean American society, not even sure if I mean European or Judeo-Christian society -- but we as a people have been engaging in sadism for centuries.  It was just a short time before slavery that "pious" Europeans were torturing each other with bizarre machinery that would stretch the body until the back broke, or literally press the flesh until it exploded -- and/or simply burned people at the stake, even alive, with their children forced to watch.  _This is in our history_.  And this sadistic base, even as it fades slowly over time, is the only reason we even entertain the idea of beating children (or beating anyone) without immediately dismissing the idea as absurd and perverse.

I can remember in my own lifetime an endless stream of dime store novels that featured some sort of woman-beating, right on the cover.  This was accepted because our legacy made us historically used to it.  Whatever that level was in say the 1950s was milder than it was in the 1900s and harsher than it is now as we excruciatingly slowly wake up to what we're doing.  But it's there, and whatever the derivation it's got a long and infamous history.

So yes it was used on slaves, and it may have been something new in the experience of West Africans, but it didn't start with them by any means.  It probably starts with a religion that splits the natural world in two and posits a black/white dichotomy of good vs evil and angels vs devils and rewards vs punishment and a so-called "loving" god that will turn on a dime and condemn to eternal fire.  But these are *ancient *and deep psychological roots.

This is really the same observation I keep making about gun violence.  The root cause is not the gun; it's the ingrained _culture_.  Fucked-up moral standards.  A bland acceptance, even worship, of death and force and the idea of "might makes right".


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them.  Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains.  Should parents never discipline then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow.  Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force.  Beating does.  If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind.  I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point.  It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country.  Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's the message.  Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it.  Some never reconcile.
> It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place.  This could be step one.
> 
> As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too.  George Washington died from it.  Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a blanket statement is rather inane though.  That is not the only message that spanking can send and I think that declaring it so is completely off base.  I have spanked my eldest three times and physical punishments do have their place though I dont see many uses for term.
> 
> All three of those times were in direct relation to violent behavior  two to others and one in general while throwing a fit that would not be contained.  The message is clear to him  violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.
> 
> Further, as pointed out through this thread, children are not of the same mold.  They do not react the same to given discipline or reward.  To state blankly that spanking leads to X is to completely gloss over this fact.  Limiting a parents toolkit (other than abuse) without any knowledge of the child itself is asinine to say the least.  I dont pretend to know what is best for other parents and their children because I am well aware of the fact that I do NOT know what is best.  I know that I dont need to spank my youngest.  I also know that my eldest needs something extra at times.  They are each different and require different disciplinary actions.  If that is so obvious within the same household within brothers I can only imagine how different others children may or may not be.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone suggested that "spanking = X in every child".  I didn't read that.  But you actually hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not, right here:



> The message is clear to him  *violence begets violence* and it does not end well for him.



Exactly.  That was the original point.  It's a slippery slope and it's all downhill.


----------



## Pogo

eflatminor said:


> dukect45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self fulfilling findings...false conclusion.  OF COURSE kids that were spanked did less well in school...the very fact they had to be spanked is a predictor of future bad behavior.  That does not however, mean the THREAT of spanking isn't a good deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> My father would have beat the crap out of me if I crossed certain lines.  I knew it.  Guess what?  I didn't cross those lines and was therefore never spanked.  Subsequently, I did very well in school and had no aggression problems.  See how that works?
Click to expand...


Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences.  Not because you understood the wrongness of it.  That's the whole issue, isn't it?

I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively.  Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kid needs to be spanked or beat. You just need to release your frustration at your inability to handle the situation. Stop being lazy and parent.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being a retard. Your inability to distinguish between spanking and beat isn't someone elses fault.
> 
> 
> 
> The post makes complete sense. If beating or spanking is your first resort you have nowhere to go from there. If a child is willful you will not break them with physical punishment. It will only serve to make them mean and or sneaky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that it's been going on since the dawn of man. So your opinion can be dismissed for what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Kids today are undisciplined because they are not taught respect for themselves and others. You dont have to beat them to teach them respect. Remember your job is teach your child to grow up and be a productive adult.  Your job is not to intimidate bully them or be their best friend. Some people let their kids run wild with no restrictions or punishment. Others physically abuse them. Both methods are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds a lot like you weren't spanked. *Spoiled, smug, self righteous, etc. You exhibit all the signs of the undisciplined child*.
Click to expand...


Irony alert...


----------



## eflatminor

Pogo said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dukect45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self fulfilling findings...false conclusion.  OF COURSE kids that were spanked did less well in school...the very fact they had to be spanked is a predictor of future bad behavior.  That does not however, mean the THREAT of spanking isn't a good deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> My father would have beat the crap out of me if I crossed certain lines.  I knew it.  Guess what?  I didn't cross those lines and was therefore never spanked.  Subsequently, I did very well in school and had no aggression problems.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences.  Not because you understood the wrongness of it.  That's the whole issue, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Children cannot understand those lines.  They are not yet capable and further, I would suggest they never grow to understand right and wrong even into adulthood if they aren't taught those lessons as kids.  Witness the insane incarceration rate among fatherless young men.



> I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively.  Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.



Authoritarian over a child?  Heck yes.  The consequences of doing otherwise are devastating.

The parent-as-friend thing doesn't work.  Never has, never will.

The important part:  My parents NEVER hit me.  Not once.  Didn't need to because I knew in no uncertain terms that if I crossed certain lines, that's exactly what would happen.  No way my undeveloped brain as a child would have comprehended a rational plea to "be good and play nice".  There MUST be consequences to motivate a child to do the right thing.


----------



## oldfart

asterism said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my impression that many of those who are adamantly opposed to spanking, who equate it to beating children, etc.  were themselves abused and beaten as children.  That makes such an opinion understandable, but it does make me wonder about the possible differences in reasoning between those who were abused and those who were not that think any form of spanking is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, since I stated that I did not believe all physical punishment rose to the level of child abuse, but that I felt that physical punishment was not necessary, I am not in the "many of those" category.  But I find it interesting that those defending physical punishment take one of two positions.  One is that spanking is rare, almost symbolic, never delivered in anger, and is discontinued by age six or seven.  I find this unobjectionable.
> 
> The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.  This really implies and often is used to justify escalating violence.  If a little slap on the behind doesn't work, and you don't want Suzy to become a shiftless lazy undisciplined child, so the reasoning goes, it's time for the paddle.  If you accept the premise that physical punishment is unavoidable and the only solution when confronted with willful disobedience, then I think the conclusion of escalating violence is inevitable.
> 
> Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there.  For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do?  And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"
> 
> Of course there are plenty of individuals, families, and societies that raise children without much physical punishment at home, in schools, and anywhere else.  America is the anomaly in many ways.  So why the need to deny an obvious reality?  I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.
> 
> So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing.  But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer this even though I fall into the category you listed as "unobjectionable."
> 
> If spanking doesn't work (due to the kid being THAT hard-headed or that spanking just doesn't work on the kid) then things must change fundamentally.  Kid won't keep the fork out of the light socket even after a spanking?  Cut the power to his room and use battery-powered lights.  Kid won't stay away from the stove?  He's locked in the bedroom when anyone is cooking.  Kid won't stop eating dog shit?  Keep her inside.  Kid won't stop messing with the dog?  Get rid of the dog.
> 
> In all of those cases the reason to try spanking is because it so often works without having to rearrange entire lifestyles, and because when spanking is effective it is indeed rare.  Long time-outs, weeks of time in solitary  - or worse weeks of time with direct adult micromanagement and correction can be psychologically damaging.  A proper swat on the butt isn't.  The key is to not do it first and not do it if it doesn't immediately work.
> 
> I agree that not all nor even most kids need to be spanked, I've got one of those.  But there are a shit-ton of kids that have never been spanked and really need to.  It'd fix them right up if done correctly.
Click to expand...


First, thanks for a well thought out post.  I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over.  I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents.  And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.  

I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did).  Most just stop there.  In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment.  The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue).  I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old.  This parenting style even worked for him.  My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have.  The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them.  If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?


----------



## Pogo

eflatminor said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self fulfilling findings...false conclusion.  OF COURSE kids that were spanked did less well in school...the very fact they had to be spanked is a predictor of future bad behavior.  That does not however, mean the THREAT of spanking isn't a good deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> My father would have beat the crap out of me if I crossed certain lines.  I knew it.  Guess what?  I didn't cross those lines and was therefore never spanked.  Subsequently, I did very well in school and had no aggression problems.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences.  Not because you understood the wrongness of it.  That's the whole issue, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children cannot understand those lines.  They are not yet capable and further, I would suggest they never grow to understand right and wrong even into adulthood if they aren't taught those lessons as kids.  Witness the insane incarceration rate among fatherless young men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively.  Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Authoritarian over a child?  Heck yes.  The consequences of doing otherwise are devastating.
> 
> The parent-as-friend thing doesn't work.  Never has, never will.
> 
> The important part:  My parents NEVER hit me.  Not once.  Didn't need to because I knew in no uncertain terms that if I crossed certain lines, that's exactly what would happen.  No way my undeveloped brain as a child would have comprehended a rational plea to "be good and play nice".  There MUST be consequences to motivate a child to do the right thing.
Click to expand...


No, I mean Authoritarian by nature.  The philosophy that Authority is always right and that 'might makes right'.... even the longing to be told what to do.

Say, if your parents "never hit you - not once" then on what possible basis could you conclude "that's what would happen"?  That in no way follows.  Your logic shoots itself in the foot, to borrow one of our typically sadistic metaphors.


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were not able to distinguish between the 2 i would not have listed them separately.  How did you miss that obvious paradox in your logic when you quoted my sentence?
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh Einstein. Who agrees with beating children? Why mention it if you aren't equating the two like the others here?
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things have gone on since the dawn of time. You inability to evolve would render you extinct if we didn't have a place in our society for those unable to process complex issues.  Normally you would be put down as a hinderance to the progress of the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And lots of smug assholes died because they weren't as smart as they thought they were.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you associate all those things with me.  I'm told i am one of the coolest people on earth to be around.  I do know people that lack confidence in themselves frequently express those same views of people that intimidate them. Do i intimidate you a little bit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. When I order fries I'll be watching to make sure you don't spit on them.
Click to expand...


From your post:


> Stop being a retard. *Your inability to distinguish between spanking and beat* isn't someone elses fault.


The issue was not about agreeing to the beating of children. It was about your lack of understanding in my post that you quoted.  I ask again. How did you miss that paradox in your logic when I distinguished the two by listing them separately?


----------



## asterism

Asclepias said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but it is.  Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right.  I am aware of it.
Click to expand...


I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.


----------



## eflatminor

Pogo said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences.  Not because you understood the wrongness of it.  That's the whole issue, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children cannot understand those lines.  They are not yet capable and further, I would suggest they never grow to understand right and wrong even into adulthood if they aren't taught those lessons as kids.  Witness the insane incarceration rate among fatherless young men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively.  Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Authoritarian over a child?  Heck yes.  The consequences of doing otherwise are devastating.
> 
> The parent-as-friend thing doesn't work.  Never has, never will.
> 
> The important part:  My parents NEVER hit me.  Not once.  Didn't need to because I knew in no uncertain terms that if I crossed certain lines, that's exactly what would happen.  No way my undeveloped brain as a child would have comprehended a rational plea to "be good and play nice".  There MUST be consequences to motivate a child to do the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean Authoritarian by nature.  The philosophy that Authority is always right and that 'might makes right'.... even the longing to be told what to do.
Click to expand...


Then I disagree.  I only suggest parents should be free to be authoritarians over their children because that's what kids need to understand those lines.



> Say, if your parents "never hit you - not once" then on what possible basis could you conclude "that's what would happen"?



Because my father made it CRYSTAL clear that is exactly what would happen...multiple times, with great specificity.  As a child, I may not have grasped the fine nuances between moral conundrums and issues of integrity, but I sure as heck could understand that if I ever hit my sister or my mother, I was in for an spanking of monumental proportions.

It worked.



> That in no way follows.  Your logic shoots itself in the foot, to borrow one of our typically sadistic metaphors.



Wrong.  It makes perfect sense.  It follows perfectly.  And there is nothing sadistic of about informing a child that he will be cracked across the butt for crossing lines he should not cross.  In fact, that kind of life guidance is born of love and caring, not sadism.  The alternative is that the kid crosses those line and fails in life.  Now THAT'S sadistic!


----------



## Asclepias

asterism said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but it is.  Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right.  I am aware of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.
Click to expand...


I'm aware of Africans that abuse their children.  My point is that it is not the norm in African culture.  This is something Black Americans picked up from slavery. This and other bad habits.


----------



## asterism

oldfart said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, since I stated that I did not believe all physical punishment rose to the level of child abuse, but that I felt that physical punishment was not necessary, I am not in the "many of those" category.  But I find it interesting that those defending physical punishment take one of two positions.  One is that spanking is rare, almost symbolic, never delivered in anger, and is discontinued by age six or seven.  I find this unobjectionable.
> 
> The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.  This really implies and often is used to justify escalating violence.  If a little slap on the behind doesn't work, and you don't want Suzy to become a shiftless lazy undisciplined child, so the reasoning goes, it's time for the paddle.  If you accept the premise that physical punishment is unavoidable and the only solution when confronted with willful disobedience, then I think the conclusion of escalating violence is inevitable.
> 
> Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there.  For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do?  And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"
> 
> Of course there are plenty of individuals, families, and societies that raise children without much physical punishment at home, in schools, and anywhere else.  America is the anomaly in many ways.  So why the need to deny an obvious reality?  I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.
> 
> So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing.  But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer this even though I fall into the category you listed as "unobjectionable."
> 
> If spanking doesn't work (due to the kid being THAT hard-headed or that spanking just doesn't work on the kid) then things must change fundamentally.  Kid won't keep the fork out of the light socket even after a spanking?  Cut the power to his room and use battery-powered lights.  Kid won't stay away from the stove?  He's locked in the bedroom when anyone is cooking.  Kid won't stop eating dog shit?  Keep her inside.  Kid won't stop messing with the dog?  Get rid of the dog.
> 
> In all of those cases the reason to try spanking is because it so often works without having to rearrange entire lifestyles, and because when spanking is effective it is indeed rare.  Long time-outs, weeks of time in solitary  - or worse weeks of time with direct adult micromanagement and correction can be psychologically damaging.  A proper swat on the butt isn't.  The key is to not do it first and not do it if it doesn't immediately work.
> 
> I agree that not all nor even most kids need to be spanked, I've got one of those.  But there are a shit-ton of kids that have never been spanked and really need to.  It'd fix them right up if done correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, thanks for a well thought out post.  I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over.  I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents.  And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.
> 
> I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did).  Most just stop there.  In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment.  The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue).  I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old.  This parenting style even worked for him.  My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have.  The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them.  If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?
Click to expand...


The vast majority of the "professionals" I know of are completely unqualified, most don't even have kids themselves.  They are all theory and zero practical application.


----------



## oldfart

asterism said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer this even though I fall into the category you listed as "unobjectionable."
> 
> If spanking doesn't work (due to the kid being THAT hard-headed or that spanking just doesn't work on the kid) then things must change fundamentally.  Kid won't keep the fork out of the light socket even after a spanking?  Cut the power to his room and use battery-powered lights.  Kid won't stay away from the stove?  He's locked in the bedroom when anyone is cooking.  Kid won't stop eating dog shit?  Keep her inside.  Kid won't stop messing with the dog?  Get rid of the dog.
> 
> In all of those cases the reason to try spanking is because it so often works without having to rearrange entire lifestyles, and because when spanking is effective it is indeed rare.  Long time-outs, weeks of time in solitary  - or worse weeks of time with direct adult micromanagement and correction can be psychologically damaging.  A proper swat on the butt isn't.  The key is to not do it first and not do it if it doesn't immediately work.
> 
> I agree that not all nor even most kids need to be spanked, I've got one of those.  But there are a shit-ton of kids that have never been spanked and really need to.  It'd fix them right up if done correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, thanks for a well thought out post.  I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over.  I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents.  And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.
> 
> I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did).  Most just stop there.  In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment.  The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue).  I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old.  This parenting style even worked for him.  My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have.  The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them.  If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the "professionals" I know of are completely unqualified, most don't even have kids themselves.  They are all theory and zero practical application.
Click to expand...


Well, I certainly am not going to try to defend all professions or all professionals.  But I would suggest you try to visit or volunteer at a special education class.  You would have an opportunity to see the practice close up.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but it is.  Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right.  I am aware of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware of Africans that abuse their children.  My point is that it is not the norm in African culture.  This is something Black Americans picked up from slavery. This and other bad habits.
Click to expand...


Just wow


----------



## BillyZane

Asclepias said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whites don't beat their kids?  Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves?  I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.
> 
> I'm white.  I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup.  Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.  I'm very curious to hear, actually.  Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couple of things.  I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this.  However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks.  If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down.  I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery.  There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage.  I forgot the author.  I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.
> 
> Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy
Click to expand...


In reality though, VERY few slave owners beat their slaves. Oh sure there were sadistic assholes of course, but why would the average slave holder beat what at the time was the same as his horse?  Answer, they didn't. 

The mean southern slave owner who beat his slaves nearly to death every day that we see on tv was as rare as the happy bunch of blacks sitting around singing songs after a long day in the fields that we see on tv today. Very rare.


----------



## Asclepias

BillyZane said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whites don't beat their kids?  Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves?  I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.
> 
> I'm white.  I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup.  Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.  I'm very curious to hear, actually.  Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couple of things.  I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this.  However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks.  If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down.  I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery.  There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage.  I forgot the author.  I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.
> 
> Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reality though, VERY few slave owners beat their slaves. Oh sure there were sadistic assholes of course, but why would the average slave holder beat what at the time was the same as his horse?  Answer, they didn't.
> 
> The mean southern slave owner who beat his slaves nearly to death every day that we see on tv was as rare as the happy bunch of blacks sitting around singing songs after a long day in the fields that we see on tv today. Very rare.
Click to expand...


Slave owners and slave drivers are 2 different occupations.  Slave owners may have had money invested in slaves but they frequently turned a blind eye to the beatings, torture, and savagery administered by the typical poor white trash slave drivers.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ^^ right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them.  Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains.  Should parents never discipline then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow.  Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force.  Beating does.  If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind.  I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point.  It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country.  Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's the message.  Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it.  Some never reconcile.
> It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place.  This could be step one.
> 
> As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too.  George Washington died from it.  Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".
Click to expand...


So where does the authority of adults over children come from?  If it isn't from being bigger, then why is that the message with physical discipline and not with emotional discipline?  

Wouldn't it be more likely, speaking of smaller children, that any message gotten from discipline would be that if you are a grown-up, you can control children?

I think you are attributing far too adult of a thought process to young children.

You have also, it seems, missed my point about spanking being common.  I didn't say or indicate that something being common meant it should continue.  I was pointing out that the correlation you and others seem to make between simple spanking and problems in adult life does not appear to be borne out.

Even if I were to agree with your description of our society as 'swimming in violence' (I don't; I think that, for the most part, society has become less and less violent over time.  The violence that occurs is simply more visible now and contrasts more to the values of society), where is the evidence that is caused, in any way, by spanking?


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them.  Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains.  Should parents never discipline then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow.  Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force.  Beating does.  If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind.  I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point.  It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country.  Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's the message.  Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it.  Some never reconcile.
> It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place.  This could be step one.
> 
> As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too.  George Washington died from it.  Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where does the authority of adults over children come from?  If it isn't from being bigger, then why is that the message with physical discipline and not with emotional discipline?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more likely, speaking of smaller children, that any message gotten from discipline would be that if you are a grown-up, you can control children?
Click to expand...


I don't understand what the question is here 



Montrovant said:


> I think you are attributing far too adult of a thought process to young children.



I don't think of it as an adult thought process; I think of it as a very basic, visceral gut emotional process.  "Bigger is badder", "might makes right", and the base of authority on physical force are really not complex concepts at all.  They're part of the most basic human emotion of fear.



Montrovant said:


> You have also, it seems, missed my point about spanking being common.  I didn't say or indicate that something being common meant it should continue.  I was pointing out that the correlation you and others seem to make between simple spanking and problems in adult life does not appear to be borne out.
> 
> Even if I were to agree with your description of our society as 'swimming in violence' (I don't; I think that, for the most part, society has become less and less violent over time.  The violence that occurs is simply more visible now and contrasts more to the values of society), where is the evidence that is caused, in any way, by spanking?



I'm not saying it's _caused by_ spanking or beating or violence in general.  I'm saying those phenomena are all part of the same mindset, which reinforce each other.  To take it to the extreme, the idea that you can spank your kids and the idea that you can go invade a country are not unrelated.  They're part of the same worldview.

And of course that's relative over time, as mentioned earlier.  We seem to be, in our standards if not in our real pop culture, evolving slowly away from those idea of violence and force.  But the underlying basis of it I think is still there so it's a Sisyphustic task.


----------



## BillyZane

Asclepias said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple of things.  I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this.  However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks.  If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down.  I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery.  There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage.  I forgot the author.  I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.
> 
> Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality though, VERY few slave owners beat their slaves. Oh sure there were sadistic assholes of course, but why would the average slave holder beat what at the time was the same as his horse?  Answer, they didn't.
> 
> The mean southern slave owner who beat his slaves nearly to death every day that we see on tv was as rare as the happy bunch of blacks sitting around singing songs after a long day in the fields that we see on tv today. Very rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slave owners and slave drivers are 2 different occupations.  Slave owners may have had money invested in slaves but they frequently turned a blind eye to the beatings, torture, and savagery administered by the typical poor white trash slave drivers.
Click to expand...


That's a fair point. But I honestly don't believe there were as many as some would have us believe.


----------



## Pogo

eflatminor said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children cannot understand those lines.  They are not yet capable and further, I would suggest they never grow to understand right and wrong even into adulthood if they aren't taught those lessons as kids.  Witness the insane incarceration rate among fatherless young men.
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarian over a child?  Heck yes.  The consequences of doing otherwise are devastating.
> 
> The parent-as-friend thing doesn't work.  Never has, never will.
> 
> The important part:  My parents NEVER hit me.  Not once.  Didn't need to because I knew in no uncertain terms that if I crossed certain lines, that's exactly what would happen.  No way my undeveloped brain as a child would have comprehended a rational plea to "be good and play nice".  There MUST be consequences to motivate a child to do the right thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean Authoritarian by nature.  The philosophy that Authority is always right and that 'might makes right'.... even the longing to be told what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I disagree.  I only suggest parents should be free to be authoritarians over their children because that's what kids need to understand those lines.
Click to expand...


Then you're giving kids no credit for comprehension.  Apparently you view them as something like cattle, I dunno.  But your praise for the practice would seem to indicate it's part of your belief system, whether in any particular case you were the Authority or the Authoritee.



eflatminor said:


> Say, if your parents "never hit you - not once" then on what possible basis could you conclude "that's what would happen"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because my father made it CRYSTAL clear that is exactly what would happen...multiple times, with great specificity.  As a child, I may not have grasped the fine nuances between moral conundrums and issues of integrity, but I sure as heck could understand that if I ever hit my sister or my mother, I was in for an spanking of monumental proportions.
> 
> It worked.
Click to expand...


It worked because you believed what you were told without any backup of it.  What if you took the obvious cynicism that 'talk is cheap'?   Doesn't seem 'crystal clear' at all if it actually never happened.  I think again that exhibits a belief in Authoritarianism.  Absent that belief, you wouldn't take an empty threat seriously.



eflatminor said:


> That in no way follows.  Your logic shoots itself in the foot, to borrow one of our typically sadistic metaphors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It makes perfect sense.  It follows perfectly.  And there is nothing sadistic of about informing a child that he will be cracked across the butt for crossing lines he should not cross.  In fact, that kind of life guidance is born of love and caring, not sadism.  The alternative is that the kid crosses those line and fails in life.  Now THAT'S sadistic!
Click to expand...


Yeah, "cracked across the butt".  Feel the love.  Please.  

Maybe the allusion to Judeo-Christianist worldview applies here too...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnEHnd2vRY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnEHnd2vRY[/ame]

As I said --- does not follow.  This is Doublethink.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of Africans that abuse their children.  My point is that it is not the norm in African culture.  This is something Black Americans picked up from slavery. This and other bad habits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just wow
Click to expand...


I see this is news to you?


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow.  Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force.  Beating does.  If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's the message.  Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it.  Some never reconcile.
> It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place.  This could be step one.
> 
> As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too.  George Washington died from it.  Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the authority of adults over children come from?  If it isn't from being bigger, then why is that the message with physical discipline and not with emotional discipline?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more likely, speaking of smaller children, that any message gotten from discipline would be that if you are a grown-up, you can control children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what the question is here
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are attributing far too adult of a thought process to young children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think of it as an adult thought process; I think of it as a very basic, visceral gut emotional process.  "Bigger is badder", "might makes right", and the base of authority on physical force are really not complex concepts at all.  They're part of the most basic human emotion of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have also, it seems, missed my point about spanking being common.  I didn't say or indicate that something being common meant it should continue.  I was pointing out that the correlation you and others seem to make between simple spanking and problems in adult life does not appear to be borne out.
> 
> Even if I were to agree with your description of our society as 'swimming in violence' (I don't; I think that, for the most part, society has become less and less violent over time.  The violence that occurs is simply more visible now and contrasts more to the values of society), where is the evidence that is caused, in any way, by spanking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's _caused by_ spanking or beating or violence in general.  I'm saying those phenomena are all part of the same mindset, which reinforce each other.  To take it to the extreme, the idea that you can spank your kids and the idea that you can go invade a country are not unrelated.  They're part of the same worldview.
> 
> And of course that's relative over time, as mentioned earlier.  We seem to be, in our standards if not in our real pop culture, evolving slowly away from those idea of violence and force.  But the underlying basis of it I think is still there so it's a Sisyphustic task.
Click to expand...


If children really came to the conclusion that bigger is badder, spanked children would end up bowing to the wishes of larger children, wouldn't they?  Again, I think it is far more likely that, even with a bigger is badder mindset, it generally only applies to adults.

All discipline can be said to teach the lesson that might makes right.  Without some power over the person being disciplined, they don't listen.  So if teaching might makes right is a bad lesson, how do you avoid it when disciplining as a parent of a young child?  I'm not asking how to avoid spanking, how do you avoid any form of discipline to avoid sending that message?  After all, time outs are a form of might makes right; the child wouldn't remain in time out unless the parent had the power to keep them there.  Taking away toys or privileges works the same way.  Discipline of any kind works because one party has more power than the other.  Is that lesson not being taught unless the discipline is in the form of spanking or other striking?

And I think that you are wrong about the adult mindset of reaching a might makes right conclusion.  I don't think small children often consider exactly why their parents have such power over them.  It's just the way of things.  When a child is old enough to start considering the why's of authority, that may be the time to stop spanking and use other forms of discipline.

I find your comparison between spanking and invasion pretty asinine, even with the 'taken to the extreme' caveat.  I could as easily say that the mindset of squishing a spider you find in your house and invading another country are not unrelated.  I could go further and say that the mindset of killing a plant to eat it and invading a country are not unrelated.  Hell, I may as well say that the emotional violence of any form of discipline and invading a country are not unrelated.  When a relationship is so extremely tenuous it becomes almost pointless.


----------



## eflatminor

Pogo said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean Authoritarian by nature.  The philosophy that Authority is always right and that 'might makes right'.... even the longing to be told what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I disagree.  I only suggest parents should be free to be authoritarians over their children because that's what kids need to understand those lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're giving kids no credit for comprehension.  Apparently you view them as something like cattle, I dunno.  But your praise for the practice would seem to indicate it's part of your belief system, whether in any particular case you were the Authority or the Authoritee.
> 
> 
> 
> It worked because you believed what you were told without any backup of it.  What if you took the obvious cynicism that 'talk is cheap'?   Doesn't seem 'crystal clear' at all if it actually never happened.  I think again that exhibits a belief in Authoritarianism.  Absent that belief, you wouldn't take an empty threat seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That in no way follows.  Your logic shoots itself in the foot, to borrow one of our typically sadistic metaphors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It makes perfect sense.  It follows perfectly.  And there is nothing sadistic of about informing a child that he will be cracked across the butt for crossing lines he should not cross.  In fact, that kind of life guidance is born of love and caring, not sadism.  The alternative is that the kid crosses those line and fails in life.  Now THAT'S sadistic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, "cracked across the butt".  Feel the love.  Please.
> 
> Maybe the allusion to Judeo-Christianist worldview applies here too...
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnEHnd2vRY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnEHnd2vRY[/ame]
> 
> As I said --- does not follow.  This is Doublethink.
Click to expand...


We'll have to disagree then.  But that's fiine, you go ahead and "suggest" a toddler shouldn't put his hand in an open flame.  You try and "reason" with a five year old...see how that works for you.  When a young teenager starts to cheat, steal and lie, let him know there will be no consequences other than a stern talking to.  Should work beautifully.

Until then, I'll point to the facts.  Fatherless young men that cannot deal with life, entitle brats raised by parent/friends...these are the actual results of what you're advocating.

Pass.


----------



## Asclepias

BillyZane said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reality though, VERY few slave owners beat their slaves. Oh sure there were sadistic assholes of course, but why would the average slave holder beat what at the time was the same as his horse?  Answer, they didn't.
> 
> The mean southern slave owner who beat his slaves nearly to death every day that we see on tv was as rare as the happy bunch of blacks sitting around singing songs after a long day in the fields that we see on tv today. Very rare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners and slave drivers are 2 different occupations.  Slave owners may have had money invested in slaves but they frequently turned a blind eye to the beatings, torture, and savagery administered by the typical poor white trash slave drivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a fair point. But I honestly don't believe there were as many as some would have us believe.
Click to expand...


My ancestors say different. In fact it was more prevalent than has been disclosed. The stories and diaries in my family paint a very vivid picture.  it was a constant thing.  I'm pretty sure there were some that had a slightly different experience. Being used as a means of intimidation would make some people docile to the point that it was not always done.  However for those that were fighters or just had sociopathic slave drivers it happened a alot.


----------



## Chaussette

*Does Spanking kids Work?*

For clueless parents it does.


----------



## Pogo

eflatminor said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I disagree.  I only suggest parents should be free to be authoritarians over their children because that's what kids need to understand those lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're giving kids no credit for comprehension.  Apparently you view them as something like cattle, I dunno.  But your praise for the practice would seem to indicate it's part of your belief system, whether in any particular case you were the Authority or the Authoritee.
> 
> 
> 
> It worked because you believed what you were told without any backup of it.  What if you took the obvious cynicism that 'talk is cheap'?   Doesn't seem 'crystal clear' at all if it actually never happened.  I think again that exhibits a belief in Authoritarianism.  Absent that belief, you wouldn't take an empty threat seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It makes perfect sense.  It follows perfectly.  And there is nothing sadistic of about informing a child that he will be cracked across the butt for crossing lines he should not cross.  In fact, that kind of life guidance is born of love and caring, not sadism.  The alternative is that the kid crosses those line and fails in life.  Now THAT'S sadistic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, "cracked across the butt".  Feel the love.  Please.
> 
> Maybe the allusion to Judeo-Christianist worldview applies here too...
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnEHnd2vRY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnEHnd2vRY[/ame]
> 
> As I said --- does not follow.  This is Doublethink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to disagree then.  But that's fiine, you go ahead and "suggest" a toddler shouldn't put his hand in an open flame.  You try and "reason" with a five year old...see how that works for you.  When a young teenager starts to cheat, steal and lie, let him know there will be no consequences other than a stern talking to.  Should work beautifully.
> 
> Until then, I'll point to the facts.  Fatherless young men that cannot deal with life, entitle brats raised by parent/friends...these are the actual results of what you're advocating.
> 
> Pass.
Click to expand...


Army of strawmen.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the authority of adults over children come from?  If it isn't from being bigger, then why is that the message with physical discipline and not with emotional discipline?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more likely, speaking of smaller children, that any message gotten from discipline would be that if you are a grown-up, you can control children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what the question is here
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think of it as an adult thought process; I think of it as a very basic, visceral gut emotional process.  "Bigger is badder", "might makes right", and the base of authority on physical force are really not complex concepts at all.  They're part of the most basic human emotion of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have also, it seems, missed my point about spanking being common.  I didn't say or indicate that something being common meant it should continue.  I was pointing out that the correlation you and others seem to make between simple spanking and problems in adult life does not appear to be borne out.
> 
> Even if I were to agree with your description of our society as 'swimming in violence' (I don't; I think that, for the most part, society has become less and less violent over time.  The violence that occurs is simply more visible now and contrasts more to the values of society), where is the evidence that is caused, in any way, by spanking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's _caused by_ spanking or beating or violence in general.  I'm saying those phenomena are all part of the same mindset, which reinforce each other.  To take it to the extreme, the idea that you can spank your kids and the idea that you can go invade a country are not unrelated.  They're part of the same worldview.
> 
> And of course that's relative over time, as mentioned earlier.  We seem to be, in our standards if not in our real pop culture, evolving slowly away from those idea of violence and force.  But the underlying basis of it I think is still there so it's a Sisyphustic task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children really came to the conclusion that bigger is badder, spanked children would end up bowing to the wishes of larger children, wouldn't they?  Again, I think it is far more likely that, even with a bigger is badder mindset, it generally only applies to adults.
Click to expand...


Sure they would.  And they do.  Did you not have siblings??



Montrovant said:


> All discipline can be said to teach the lesson that might makes right.  Without some power over the person being disciplined, they don't listen.  So if teaching might makes right is a bad lesson, how do you avoid it when disciplining as a parent of a young child?  I'm not asking how to avoid spanking, how do you avoid any form of discipline to avoid sending that message?  After all, time outs are a form of might makes right; the child wouldn't remain in time out unless the parent had the power to keep them there.  Taking away toys or privileges works the same way.  Discipline of any kind works because one party has more power than the other.  Is that lesson not being taught unless the discipline is in the form of spanking or other striking?



You're trying to stretch the point to fit.  All I'm talking about is the violent approach.  "Timeouts", denial of privileges and the like are unrelated here.



Montrovant said:


> And I think that you are wrong about the adult mindset of reaching a might makes right conclusion.  I don't think small children often consider exactly why their parents have such power over them.  It's just the way of things.  When a child is old enough to start considering the why's of authority, that may be the time to stop spanking and use other forms of discipline.



When you're down to "it's just the way of things" I think you've run out of argument.  Any human of any age --let alone animals-- can understand the concept that "this outside entity is a superior force and will hurt me if I do X".  You don't need intellectual development to figure that out.  And these equivalencies take root in a young mind long before abstract thought can develop to pick it apart.

Ever see a dog that's been abused?  Same thing.  Abstract intellect not required.



Montrovant said:


> I find your comparison between spanking and invasion pretty asinine, even with the 'taken to the extreme' caveat.  I could as easily say that the mindset of squishing a spider you find in your house and invading another country are not unrelated.  I could go further and say that the mindset of killing a plant to eat it and invading a country are not unrelated.  Hell, I may as well say that the emotional violence of any form of discipline and invading a country are not unrelated.  When a relationship is so extremely tenuous it becomes almost pointless.



You could say those things, and they would all be logical.  That doesn't mean we cannot draw a line and forbid ourselves to ever eat a plant.  What we speak of here is all relative; where we draw the line.  The line shifts over time, obviously.  Many of us posting here had acts visited on us by our parents that today would land them in jail.  But that doesn't mean they were the right thing in their time.  Any more than torturing "witches" was the right thing in _its_ time.  Again, taking an analogy to extremes, the reason for doing so being that it makes the point more obvious.


----------



## BillyZane

What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?

The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"

The answer is yes absolutely it work.

Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"

Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.

Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?


----------



## R.D.

BillyZane said:


> What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?
> 
> The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"
> 
> The answer is yes absolutely it work.
> 
> Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"
> 
> Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.
> 
> Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?



You really can't say it works unilaterally imo.   Like anything, done wrong it's pointless and can border on abuse even when well intentioned

The debate stops in its tracks when those against it feel they hold a moral high ground and ironically sink to nasty remarks and accusations while bragging


----------



## Asclepias

BillyZane said:


> What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?
> 
> The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"
> 
> The answer is yes absolutely it work.
> 
> Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"
> 
> Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.
> 
> Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?



I think that we would need to define the meaning of "work" in this context. To me "work" would mean to achieve the objective. If my objective is to intimidate then yes it works. If my aim is to teach my child why what they did was wrong then no it does not work nor is it the best way to teach someone anything.


----------



## Pogo

BillyZane said:


> What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?
> 
> The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"
> 
> The answer is yes absolutely it work.
> 
> Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"
> 
> Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.
> 
> Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?



Well aren't you the little dictator here to force his will on everybody.

Rotsa ruck wit dat.  I can't imagine what you're gonna do if it doesn't go your way -- hit people?  With "STUPID" in all caps?

Since you brought up the comparison, no torture doesn't work (which has been known for centuries) for much the same reason that spanking doesn't.  As E&#9837;m illustrated, the spankee adjusts his behaviour to avoid harm -- not because he's learned why behaviour X is prohibited.  Same thing with torture-- the torturee tells the torturer what he wants to hear, for the same reason -- to avoid harm.


----------



## eflatminor

Pogo said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're giving kids no credit for comprehension.  Apparently you view them as something like cattle, I dunno.  But your praise for the practice would seem to indicate it's part of your belief system, whether in any particular case you were the Authority or the Authoritee.
> 
> 
> 
> It worked because you believed what you were told without any backup of it.  What if you took the obvious cynicism that 'talk is cheap'?   Doesn't seem 'crystal clear' at all if it actually never happened.  I think again that exhibits a belief in Authoritarianism.  Absent that belief, you wouldn't take an empty threat seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, "cracked across the butt".  Feel the love.  Please.
> 
> Maybe the allusion to Judeo-Christianist worldview applies here too...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnEHnd2vRY
> 
> As I said --- does not follow.  This is Doublethink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to disagree then.  But that's fiine, you go ahead and "suggest" a toddler shouldn't put his hand in an open flame.  You try and "reason" with a five year old...see how that works for you.  When a young teenager starts to cheat, steal and lie, let him know there will be no consequences other than a stern talking to.  Should work beautifully.
> 
> Until then, I'll point to the facts.  Fatherless young men that cannot deal with life, entitle brats raised by parent/friends...these are the actual results of what you're advocating.
> 
> Pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Army of strawmen.
Click to expand...


Response of diversion.  Sorry, you've haven't made the case that eliminating the treat of appropriate physical interaction with a child can produce a reasonable adult, especially when we have such a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Look, I'm not condoning abuse here.  I'm saying that if you don't incorporate the real threat of at least a butt smacking into the rearing of a child, you dramatically increase the odds of ended up with a maladjusted adult...as so many raised fatherless or by "friend(s)" prove every day.

But hey, your kid, your choice.  It isn't my problem if you best buddy ends up a delinquent.  Just don't tell me how to raise mine.


----------



## Pogo

eflatminor said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to disagree then.  But that's fiine, you go ahead and "suggest" a toddler shouldn't put his hand in an open flame.  You try and "reason" with a five year old...see how that works for you.  When a young teenager starts to cheat, steal and lie, let him know there will be no consequences other than a stern talking to.  Should work beautifully.
> 
> Until then, I'll point to the facts.  Fatherless young men that cannot deal with life, entitle brats raised by parent/friends...these are the actual results of what you're advocating.
> 
> Pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army of strawmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Response of diversion.  Sorry, you've haven't made the case that eliminating the treat of appropriate physical interaction with a child can produce a reasonable adult, especially when we have such a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Look, I'm not condoning abuse here.  I'm saying that if you don't incorporate the real threat of at least a butt smacking into the rearing of a child, you dramatically increase the odds of ended up with a maladjusted adult...as so many raised fatherless or by "friend(s)" prove every day.
> 
> But hey, your kid, your choice.  It isn't my problem if you best buddy ends up a delinquent.  Just *don't tell me how to raise mine.*
Click to expand...


Where the HELL did I do that??

See what I mean about Authoritarian attitude?  I ain't your father; you have to think for yourself.  I simply showed you why your logic fails.  If you choose to go with it in spite of that, that's *your *choice.  Not mine.


----------



## eflatminor

Pogo said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Army of strawmen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Response of diversion.  Sorry, you've haven't made the case that eliminating the treat of appropriate physical interaction with a child can produce a reasonable adult, especially when we have such a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Look, I'm not condoning abuse here.  I'm saying that if you don't incorporate the real threat of at least a butt smacking into the rearing of a child, you dramatically increase the odds of ended up with a maladjusted adult...as so many raised fatherless or by "friend(s)" prove every day.
> 
> But hey, your kid, your choice.  It isn't my problem if you best buddy ends up a delinquent.  Just *don't tell me how to raise mine.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where the HELL did I do that??
Click to expand...


Didn't say you did, just saying don't.  Try to calm yourself now.  It'll be alright.



> See what I mean about Authoritarian attitude?  I ain't your father; you have to think for yourself.  I simply showed you why your logic fails.



Actually you didn't, not even close.  What you did do was completely avoid the facts and the results we see every day from people raised without consequences.  As I said, diversion is all you gave us.



> If you choose to go with it in spite of that, that's *your *choice.  Not mine.



I choose to go with what works.  You're free to go with what feels right...because afterall, intentions are more important than results.


----------



## Pogo

eflatminor said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Response of diversion.  Sorry, you've haven't made the case that eliminating the treat of appropriate physical interaction with a child can produce a reasonable adult, especially when we have such a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Look, I'm not condoning abuse here.  I'm saying that if you don't incorporate the real threat of at least a butt smacking into the rearing of a child, you dramatically increase the odds of ended up with a maladjusted adult...as so many raised fatherless or by "friend(s)" prove every day.
> 
> But hey, your kid, your choice.  It isn't my problem if you best buddy ends up a delinquent.  Just *don't tell me how to raise mine.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the HELL did I do that??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say you did, just saying don't.  Try to calm yourself now.  It'll be alright.
Click to expand...


Uh.... yyyeah.  Well then don't fix my coffee for me.  And stop driving my car.
That makes as much sense and just as dishonest.



eflatminor said:


> See what I mean about Authoritarian attitude?  I ain't your father; you have to think for yourself.  I simply showed you why your logic fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you didn't, not even close.  What you did do was completely avoid the facts and the results we see every day from people raised without consequences.  As I said, diversion is all you gave us.
Click to expand...


I haven't analyzed "results" at all.  That's your insertion.  I'm just analyzing the nature of violence, i.e. the status quo.  Your strawman is outstanding in his field but doesn't work here.



eflatminor said:


> If you choose to go with it in spite of that, that's *your *choice.  Not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose to go with what works.  You're free to go with what feels right...because afterall, intentions are more important than results.
Click to expand...


Again.... pick up your straw.  I suspect you keep deflecting to this nebulous "results" thing because you can't debate the intrinsic value.


----------



## Meister

USNavyVet said:


> I think spanking on the rear is fine as long as it's the last resort and *is not done while angry*. A friend of mine really has it down. He has 3  girls and the oldest acts up a lot so she gets a lot of time outs. At some point, when the time out is used multiple times for the same issue during the same day, she may get a smack on the butt but it's not often. And I've never seen him lash out or even raise his voice other than to get the girl's attention.
> 
> *The main issue to make sure you never reprimand the kids when you're angry*. I think people tend to overreact.



This 

When done properly, it's an attention getter.  Hurts the pride more than the butt.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what the question is here
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think of it as an adult thought process; I think of it as a very basic, visceral gut emotional process.  "Bigger is badder", "might makes right", and the base of authority on physical force are really not complex concepts at all.  They're part of the most basic human emotion of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's _caused by_ spanking or beating or violence in general.  I'm saying those phenomena are all part of the same mindset, which reinforce each other.  To take it to the extreme, the idea that you can spank your kids and the idea that you can go invade a country are not unrelated.  They're part of the same worldview.
> 
> And of course that's relative over time, as mentioned earlier.  We seem to be, in our standards if not in our real pop culture, evolving slowly away from those idea of violence and force.  But the underlying basis of it I think is still there so it's a Sisyphustic task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If children really came to the conclusion that bigger is badder, spanked children would end up bowing to the wishes of larger children, wouldn't they?  Again, I think it is far more likely that, even with a bigger is badder mindset, it generally only applies to adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they would.  And they do.  Did you not have siblings??
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to stretch the point to fit.  All I'm talking about is the violent approach.  "Timeouts", denial of privileges and the like are unrelated here.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I think that you are wrong about the adult mindset of reaching a might makes right conclusion.  I don't think small children often consider exactly why their parents have such power over them.  It's just the way of things.  When a child is old enough to start considering the why's of authority, that may be the time to stop spanking and use other forms of discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're down to "it's just the way of things" I think you've run out of argument.  Any human of any age --let alone animals-- can understand the concept that "this outside entity is a superior force and will hurt me if I do X".  You don't need intellectual development to figure that out.  And these equivalencies take root in a young mind long before abstract thought can develop to pick it apart.
> 
> Ever see a dog that's been abused?  Same thing.  Abstract intellect not required.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your comparison between spanking and invasion pretty asinine, even with the 'taken to the extreme' caveat.  I could as easily say that the mindset of squishing a spider you find in your house and invading another country are not unrelated.  I could go further and say that the mindset of killing a plant to eat it and invading a country are not unrelated.  Hell, I may as well say that the emotional violence of any form of discipline and invading a country are not unrelated.  When a relationship is so extremely tenuous it becomes almost pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could say those things, and they would all be logical.  That doesn't mean we cannot draw a line and forbid ourselves to ever eat a plant.  What we speak of here is all relative; where we draw the line.  The line shifts over time, obviously.  Many of us posting here had acts visited on us by our parents that today would land them in jail.  But that doesn't mean they were the right thing in their time.  Any more than torturing "witches" was the right thing in _its_ time.  Again, taking an analogy to extremes, the reason for doing so being that it makes the point more obvious.
Click to expand...


I have siblings.  I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.

My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority.  I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them.  I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult.  I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others.  When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'.  Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.".  If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK.  I can see your point.  But as an occasional tool?  I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.

I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously.  But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is.  It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places.  That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.  

Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If children really came to the conclusion that bigger is badder, spanked children would end up bowing to the wishes of larger children, wouldn't they?  Again, I think it is far more likely that, even with a bigger is badder mindset, it generally only applies to adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would.  And they do.  Did you not have siblings??
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to stretch the point to fit.  All I'm talking about is the violent approach.  "Timeouts", denial of privileges and the like are unrelated here.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're down to "it's just the way of things" I think you've run out of argument.  Any human of any age --let alone animals-- can understand the concept that "this outside entity is a superior force and will hurt me if I do X".  You don't need intellectual development to figure that out.  And these equivalencies take root in a young mind long before abstract thought can develop to pick it apart.
> 
> Ever see a dog that's been abused?  Same thing.  Abstract intellect not required.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your comparison between spanking and invasion pretty asinine, even with the 'taken to the extreme' caveat.  I could as easily say that the mindset of squishing a spider you find in your house and invading another country are not unrelated.  I could go further and say that the mindset of killing a plant to eat it and invading a country are not unrelated.  Hell, I may as well say that the emotional violence of any form of discipline and invading a country are not unrelated.  When a relationship is so extremely tenuous it becomes almost pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could say those things, and they would all be logical.  That doesn't mean we cannot draw a line and forbid ourselves to ever eat a plant.  What we speak of here is all relative; where we draw the line.  The line shifts over time, obviously.  Many of us posting here had acts visited on us by our parents that today would land them in jail.  But that doesn't mean they were the right thing in their time.  Any more than torturing "witches" was the right thing in _its_ time.  Again, taking an analogy to extremes, the reason for doing so being that it makes the point more obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have siblings.  I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.
> 
> My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority.  I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them.  I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult.  I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others.  When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'.  Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
> So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.".  If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK.  I can see your point.  But as an occasional tool?  I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.
Click to expand...


I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it.  It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that.  The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want."  That's it, just that.

The question is, do you want to impart that particular value?  It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money.  But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion.  He *can't* if it's not part of his experience.




Montrovant said:


> I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously.  But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is.  It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places.  That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.
> 
> Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.



You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun?  Think about it...  it's the same psychological dynamic.  The idea of bringing about an end by force.  It's glaringly obvious to me.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would.  And they do.  Did you not have siblings??
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to stretch the point to fit.  All I'm talking about is the violent approach.  "Timeouts", denial of privileges and the like are unrelated here.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're down to "it's just the way of things" I think you've run out of argument.  Any human of any age --let alone animals-- can understand the concept that "this outside entity is a superior force and will hurt me if I do X".  You don't need intellectual development to figure that out.  And these equivalencies take root in a young mind long before abstract thought can develop to pick it apart.
> 
> Ever see a dog that's been abused?  Same thing.  Abstract intellect not required.
> 
> 
> 
> You could say those things, and they would all be logical.  That doesn't mean we cannot draw a line and forbid ourselves to ever eat a plant.  What we speak of here is all relative; where we draw the line.  The line shifts over time, obviously.  Many of us posting here had acts visited on us by our parents that today would land them in jail.  But that doesn't mean they were the right thing in their time.  Any more than torturing "witches" was the right thing in _its_ time.  Again, taking an analogy to extremes, the reason for doing so being that it makes the point more obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have siblings.  I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.
> 
> My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority.  I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them.  I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult.  I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others.  When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'.  Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
> So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.".  If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK.  I can see your point.  But as an occasional tool?  I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it.  It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that.  The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want."  That's it, just that.
> 
> The question is, do you want to impart that particular value?  It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money.  But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion.  He *can't* if it's not part of his experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously.  But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is.  It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places.  That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.
> 
> Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun?  Think about it...  it's the same psychological dynamic.  The idea of bringing about an end by force.  It's glaringly obvious to me.
Click to expand...


Well, I thought we were discussing spanking, not switching.  

Like I said, while I can see the connection, I find it an extremely tenuous one.


----------



## Iceweasel

oldfart said:


> First, I was sloppy in my language.  I meant to say "those who insist that physical punishment is required to rear children successfully" rather than "those who defend physical punishment".  IOW my objection is not with parents using and defending physical punishment, but with those who argue that it is required to rear children properly.


I've always said it depends on the child. Good parents sometimes have troublesome kids for whatever reason. I agree with spanking in that case because if the kid doesn't learn to control himself then, he is going to learn it later when the consequences are bigger. 


> Most kids were spanked, so if they are undisciplined, spanking does not seem to correct them.  I know of many highly successful, happy, self-confident, and productive individuals who were never physically disciplined as a child.  You seem to persist in thinking that these people do not exist.  Why do you spend so much effort trying to deny this existence?  Does it threaten you to admit they exist?


I never said it. You have me mixed up with someone else. 


> Why are you defending the extremist position?  And isn't this the very position you started your post with by accusing me of creating it as a straw man?


My extremist position is that there's a difference between spanking and beating.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have siblings.  I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.
> 
> My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority.  I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them.  I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult.  I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others.  When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'.  Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
> So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.".  If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK.  I can see your point.  But as an occasional tool?  I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it.  It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that.  The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want."  That's it, just that.
> 
> The question is, do you want to impart that particular value?  It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money.  But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion.  He *can't* if it's not part of his experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously.  But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is.  It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places.  That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.
> 
> Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun?  Think about it...  it's the same psychological dynamic.  The idea of bringing about an end by force.  It's glaringly obvious to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I thought we were discussing spanking, not switching.
> 
> Like I said, while I can see the connection, I find it an extremely tenuous one.
Click to expand...


"spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.

I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'.  If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking.  In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.


----------



## eflatminor

Pogo said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where the HELL did I do that??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say you did, just saying don't.  Try to calm yourself now.  It'll be alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... yyyeah.  Well then don't fix my coffee for me.  And stop driving my car.
> That makes as much sense and just as dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't analyzed "results" at all.  That's your insertion.  I'm just analyzing the nature of violence, i.e. the status quo.  Your strawman is outstanding in his field but doesn't work here.
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you choose to go with it in spite of that, that's *your *choice.  Not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose to go with what works.  You're free to go with what feels right...because afterall, intentions are more important than results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.... pick up your straw.  I suspect you keep deflecting to this nebulous "results" thing because you can't debate the intrinsic value.
Click to expand...


You're free to deny the results all rational people see, that's your right...and about what we've come to expect.  Again, good luck raising that kid right.


----------



## oldfart

Iceweasel said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I was sloppy in my language.  I meant to say "those who insist that physical punishment is required to rear children successfully" rather than "those who defend physical punishment".  IOW my objection is not with parents using and defending physical punishment, but with those who argue that it is required to rear children properly.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always said it depends on the child. Good parents sometimes have troublesome kids for whatever reason. I agree with spanking in that case because if the kid doesn't learn to control himself then, he is going to learn it later when the consequences are bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> Most kids were spanked, so if they are undisciplined, spanking does not seem to correct them.  I know of many highly successful, happy, self-confident, and productive individuals who were never physically disciplined as a child.  You seem to persist in thinking that these people do not exist.  Why do you spend so much effort trying to deny this existence?  Does it threaten you to admit they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it. You have me mixed up with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you defending the extremist position?  And isn't this the very position you started your post with by accusing me of creating it as a straw man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My extremist position is that there's a difference between spanking and beating.
Click to expand...


In which case I have seriously confused myself as to who has posted what.  I do that with some frequency.  My apologies.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I thought we were discussing spanking, not switching.
> 
> Like I said, while I can see the connection, I find it an extremely tenuous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.
> 
> I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'.  If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking.  In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.
Click to expand...


I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific.  It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context.  For me at least, anything else is not a spank.


----------



## asterism

oldfart said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, thanks for a well thought out post.  I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over.  I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents.  And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.
> 
> I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did).  Most just stop there.  In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment.  The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue).  I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old.  This parenting style even worked for him.  My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have.  The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them.  If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the "professionals" I know of are completely unqualified, most don't even have kids themselves.  They are all theory and zero practical application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly am not going to try to defend all professions or all professionals.  But I would suggest you try to visit or volunteer at a special education class.  You would have an opportunity to see the practice close up.
Click to expand...


I have, that's where I have formed my opinion (that and lots of volunteering in charities for at risk kids).  They have good intentions and education in theory but that's it.  There's a huge difference between teaching and/or mentoring a child and raising one.  The good ones understand that distinction but most think they are better parents than most parents despite never having that responsibility themselves.


----------



## Pogo

eflatminor said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say you did, just saying don't.  Try to calm yourself now.  It'll be alright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... yyyeah.  Well then don't fix my coffee for me.  And stop driving my car.
> That makes as much sense and just as dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't analyzed "results" at all.  That's your insertion.  I'm just analyzing the nature of violence, i.e. the status quo.  Your strawman is outstanding in his field but doesn't work here.
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose to go with what works.  You're free to go with what feels right...because afterall, intentions are more important than results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.... pick up your straw.  I suspect you keep deflecting to this nebulous "results" thing because you can't debate the intrinsic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to deny the results all rational people see, that's your right...and about what we've come to expect.  Again, good luck raising that kid right.
Click to expand...


I'm also free to observe that I haven't even opined on all the straw you've stuffed in my mouth.  Then again you're free to pretend I did if you can't deal with the argument on its own terms.   Again, good luck raising that strawman.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I thought we were discussing spanking, not switching.
> 
> Like I said, while I can see the connection, I find it an extremely tenuous one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.
> 
> I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'.  If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking.  In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific.  It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context.  For me at least, anything else is not a spank.
Click to expand...


If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time 

I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching".  It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called.  Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).

Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be.  I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.


----------



## BobPlumb

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they would.  And they do.  Did you not have siblings??
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to stretch the point to fit.  All I'm talking about is the violent approach.  "Timeouts", denial of privileges and the like are unrelated here.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're down to "it's just the way of things" I think you've run out of argument.  Any human of any age --let alone animals-- can understand the concept that "this outside entity is a superior force and will hurt me if I do X".  You don't need intellectual development to figure that out.  And these equivalencies take root in a young mind long before abstract thought can develop to pick it apart.
> 
> Ever see a dog that's been abused?  Same thing.  Abstract intellect not required.
> 
> 
> 
> You could say those things, and they would all be logical.  That doesn't mean we cannot draw a line and forbid ourselves to ever eat a plant.  What we speak of here is all relative; where we draw the line.  The line shifts over time, obviously.  Many of us posting here had acts visited on us by our parents that today would land them in jail.  But that doesn't mean they were the right thing in their time.  Any more than torturing "witches" was the right thing in _its_ time.  Again, taking an analogy to extremes, the reason for doing so being that it makes the point more obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have siblings.  I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.
> 
> My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority.  I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them.  I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult.  I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others.  When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'.  Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
> So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.".  If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK.  I can see your point.  But as an occasional tool?  I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it.  It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that.  The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want."  That's it, just that.
> 
> The question is, do you want to impart that particular value?  It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money.  But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion.  He *can't* if it's not part of his experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously.  But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is.  It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places.  That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.
> 
> Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun?  Think about it...  it's the same psychological dynamic.  The idea of bringing about an end by force.  It's glaringly obvious to me.
Click to expand...


Do we not have a similar parallel if the kid is cleaning his room under threat of taking his x-box away or being grounded for a month?  Of course, if the kid is old enough to be expected to clean his room spanking or use of a switch would not be the dicipline tool of first choice even for those that beleive spanking has a place in a parent's toolbox of disipline tools.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.
> 
> I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'.  If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking.  In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific.  It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context.  For me at least, anything else is not a spank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time
> 
> I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching".  It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called.  Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).
> 
> Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be.  I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we've been operating under different definitions.

I'm not entirely certain I understand your last paragraph.  Are you saying that you don't believe that someone can spank only occasionally and with a minimum of pain, with no lasting physical effects, and not do more?  I got the impression you are saying if someone spanks the way I think of it, it inevitably leads to the much more violent and dangerous types that you were speaking of.


----------



## Pogo

BobPlumb said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have siblings.  I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.
> 
> My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority.  I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them.  I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult.  I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others.  When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'.  Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
> So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.".  If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK.  I can see your point.  But as an occasional tool?  I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it.  It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that.  The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want."  That's it, just that.
> 
> The question is, do you want to impart that particular value?  It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money.  But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion.  He *can't* if it's not part of his experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously.  But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is.  It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places.  That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.
> 
> Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun?  Think about it...  it's the same psychological dynamic.  The idea of bringing about an end by force.  It's glaringly obvious to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a similar parallel if the kid is cleaning his room under threat of taking his x-box away or being grounded for a month?  Of course, if the kid is old enough to be expected to clean his room spanking or use of a switch would not be the dicipline tool of first choice even for those that beleive spanking has a place in a parent's toolbox of disipline tools.
Click to expand...


No I don't think that's a similar parallel.  The comparison may be a stretch but to entertain it here, the analogy to taking the game away might be a country imposing economic sanctions on another.  That's entirely different from invading that country, just as taking the game away from the kid is entirely different from hitting him.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific.  It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context.  For me at least, anything else is not a spank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time
> 
> I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching".  It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called.  Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).
> 
> Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be.  I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we've been operating under different definitions.
> 
> I'm not entirely certain I understand your last paragraph.  Are you saying that you don't believe that someone can spank only occasionally and with a minimum of pain, with no lasting physical effects, and not do more?  I got the impression you are saying if someone spanks the way I think of it, it inevitably leads to the much more violent and dangerous types that you were speaking of.
Click to expand...


I guess I'm saying I have a hard time believing such a thing actually _exists_ in the real world -- as opposed to the abstract of a message board.  Because what you described, hell I see baseball coaches do that to a player who just hit a single.  That's a completely different thing from what I think of as 'spanking'.

I just don't believe humans are positively motivated by negatives.  That about sums it up.


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow.  Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force.  Beating does.  If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's the message.  Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it.  Some never reconcile.
> It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place.  This could be step one.
> 
> As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too.  George Washington died from it.  Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a blanket statement is rather inane though.  That is not the only message that spanking can send and I think that declaring it so is completely off base.  I have spanked my eldest three times and physical punishments do have their place though I don&#8217;t see many uses for term.
> 
> All three of those times were in direct relation to violent behavior &#8211; two to others and one in general while throwing a fit that would not be contained.  The message is clear to him &#8211; violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.
> 
> Further, as pointed out through this thread, children are not of the same mold.  They do not react the same to given discipline or reward.  To state blankly that spanking leads to X is to completely gloss over this fact.  Limiting a parent&#8217;s toolkit (other than abuse) without any knowledge of the child itself is asinine to say the least.  I don&#8217;t pretend to know what is best for other parents and their children because I am well aware of the fact that I do NOT know what is best.  I know that I don&#8217;t need to spank my youngest.  I also know that my eldest needs something extra at times.  They are each different and require different disciplinary actions.  If that is so obvious within the same household within brothers I can only imagine how different others children may or may not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone suggested that "spanking = X in every child".  I didn't read that.  But you actually hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not, right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The message is clear to him &#8211; *violence begets violence* and it does not end well for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That was the original point.  It's a slippery slope and it's all downhill.
Click to expand...


No, it&#8217;s not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation.  Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson.  That does not make it a slippery slope.


A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not.  You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right.  That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever.  It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use.  That does not mean that all children should be spanked.  Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.  

Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO.  I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:


Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.
> 
> I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'.  If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking.  In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific.  It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context.  For me at least, anything else is not a spank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time
> 
> I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching".  It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called.  Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).
> 
> Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be.  I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.
Click to expand...

It is not unrealistic at all.  As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your &#8216;definition&#8217; of spank is extremely uncommon.  I haven&#8217;t heard of a parent requiring an &#8216;instrument&#8217; like a belt for a generation.  Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence.  Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario.  Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves.  Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking.  I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child &#8211; he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is.  Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here.  I don&#8217;t know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).  

Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation.  If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action.  That is an action taken in anger and frustration.  Most spankings are not taken in anger &#8211; they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child.  Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.


----------



## eflatminor

Pogo said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... yyyeah.  Well then don't fix my coffee for me.  And stop driving my car.
> That makes as much sense and just as dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't analyzed "results" at all.  That's your insertion.  I'm just analyzing the nature of violence, i.e. the status quo.  Your strawman is outstanding in his field but doesn't work here.
> 
> 
> 
> Again.... pick up your straw.  I suspect you keep deflecting to this nebulous "results" thing because you can't debate the intrinsic value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to deny the results all rational people see, that's your right...and about what we've come to expect.  Again, good luck raising that kid right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm also free to observe that I haven't even opined on all the straw you've stuffed in my mouth.  Then again you're free to pretend I did if you can't deal with the argument on its own terms.   Again, good luck raising that strawman.
Click to expand...




> *...you can't deal with the argument on its own terms*



Oh the irony!

You go with that...


----------



## Chaussette

Hitting children is for cowards.


----------



## Two Thumbs

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


for 10,000 years children were spank as part of an array of punishments to correct bad behavior.

during this time, child, criminal, violence was very low.

Now the only acceptable punishment is a time out.

Since this time, children have started committing crimes that only adults would ever consider.



So while there are plenty of studies out, by leftist covering for leftist, the clear results are out in the open for all to see


----------



## Two Thumbs

I fully expect a link to be demanded or be told it's different, by a liberal.


----------



## eflatminor

Chaussette said:


> Hitting children is for cowards.



On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child.  Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out.  Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions.  But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class?  You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course.  Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.


----------



## Chaussette

eflatminor said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting children is for cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child.  Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out.  Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions.  But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class?  You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course.  Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.


----------



## R.D.

Chaussette said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting children is for cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child.  Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out.  Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions.  But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class?  You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course.  Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.
Click to expand...


You're so special 

Did you also raise them with that smug condenscending holier than  thou 'tude? Lucky them.


----------



## Iceweasel

R.D. said:


> Did you also raise them with that smug condenscending holier than  thou 'tude? Lucky them.


My guess is yes. It's a common theme with the 'spanking is beating' crowd. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## eflatminor

Chaussette said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting children is for cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child.  Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out.  Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions.  But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class?  You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course.  Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.
Click to expand...


Unverifiable and statistically insignificant.  The facts prove that kids raised without real consequences tend to grow up to be entitled, dishonorable, and prone to getting in real trouble.  Sorry, your wonderful children do not overturn a generation of fatherless and parents-as-friends experience.  

And guess what, my father never hit me...he didn't have to because I knew what would be in store if I crossed certain lines, and it wasn't necessarily a spanking but consequences that actually meant something.  See how that works?


----------



## oldfart

Folks, this is the CDZ.  Can we forgo the direct personal attacks on other posters?


----------



## BillyZane

Pogo said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?
> 
> The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"
> 
> The answer is yes absolutely it work.
> 
> Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"
> 
> Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.
> 
> Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you the little dictator here to force his will on everybody.
> 
> Rotsa ruck wit dat.  I can't imagine what you're gonna do if it doesn't go your way -- hit people?  With "STUPID" in all caps?
> 
> Since you brought up the comparison, no torture doesn't work (which has been known for centuries) for much the same reason that spanking doesn't. * As E&#9837;m illustrated, the spankee adjusts his behaviour to avoid harm *-- not because he's learned why behaviour X is prohibited.  Same thing with torture-- the torturee tells the torturer what he wants to hear, for the same reason -- to avoid harm.
Click to expand...


That's the purpose of spanking, or any other form of punishment. Or do you think prison actually teaches anyone not to be a criminal? Of course it doesn't, it merely tells them "adjust your behavior, or this is where you will end up"

Oh, and torture absolutely works. If you torture someone, they WILL tell you everything they know, you've been watching too many movies if you believe people can train their minds to ignore the pain and be devious enough to give false information, but even if some manage it, there are people who are trained to separate truth from lies AND it would be stupid to take ANY action based on ANY uncorroborated facts whether obtained from torture or any other means, so the lies wouldn't even do the tortured person any good, even if they COULD lie.


----------



## Asclepias

Chaussette said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting children is for cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child.  Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out.  Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions.  But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class?  You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course.  Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.
Click to expand...


Kudos for raising your children without hitting but hitting your children does not make you a coward for sure. You could be uninformed operating off what you were taught, lazy, or have your priorities in the wrong order.


----------



## Asclepias

eflatminor said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child.  Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out.  Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions.  But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class?  You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course.  Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unverifiable and statistically insignificant.  The facts prove that kids raised without real consequences tend to grow up to be entitled, dishonorable, and prone to getting in real trouble.  Sorry, your wonderful children do not overturn a generation of fatherless and parents-as-friends experience.
> 
> And guess what, my father never hit me...he didn't have to because I knew what would be in store if I crossed certain lines, and it wasn't necessarily a spanking but consequences that actually meant something.  See how that works?
Click to expand...


Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence.  Ostracizing is  a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.


----------



## Chaussette

R.D. said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child.  Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out.  Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions.  But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class?  You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course.  Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so special
> 
> Did you also raise them with that smug condenscending holier than  thou 'tude? Lucky them.
Click to expand...


It's not a "smug condenscending holier than  thou 'tude", I actually am better than you are.


----------



## eflatminor

Asclepias said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable and statistically insignificant.  The facts prove that kids raised without real consequences tend to grow up to be entitled, dishonorable, and prone to getting in real trouble.  Sorry, your wonderful children do not overturn a generation of fatherless and parents-as-friends experience.
> 
> And guess what, my father never hit me...he didn't have to because I knew what would be in store if I crossed certain lines, and it wasn't necessarily a spanking but consequences that actually meant something.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence.  Ostracizing is  a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.
Click to expand...


Agree 100%


----------



## Montrovant

Two Thumbs said:


> dukect45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Fathers high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for 10,000 years children were spank as part of an array of punishments to correct bad behavior.
> 
> during this time, child, criminal, violence was very low.
> 
> Now the only acceptable punishment is a time out.
> 
> Since this time, children have started committing crimes that only adults would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> So while there are plenty of studies out, by leftist covering for leftist, the clear results are out in the open for all to see
Click to expand...


Are you saying the violent criminals who are children were more rare in the past but are common now?

Does this take into account the fact that people were considered adults at an earlier age in the past?

And what, specifically, are the criminal acts you are talking about?

Even if your statement is true, is there any evidence that spanking has anything to do with it?

And I'm no liberal, but yes, I'd love a link.


----------



## Pogo

BillyZane said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?
> 
> The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"
> 
> The answer is yes absolutely it work.
> 
> Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"
> 
> Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.
> 
> Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you the little dictator here to force his will on everybody.
> 
> Rotsa ruck wit dat.  I can't imagine what you're gonna do if it doesn't go your way -- hit people?  With "STUPID" in all caps?
> 
> Since you brought up the comparison, no torture doesn't work (which has been known for centuries) for much the same reason that spanking doesn't. * As E&#9837;m illustrated, the spankee adjusts his behaviour to avoid harm *-- *not because he's learned why behaviour X is prohibited*.  Same thing with torture-- the torturee tells the torturer what he wants to hear, for the same reason -- to avoid harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the purpose of spanking, or any other form of punishment. Or do you think prison actually teaches anyone not to be a criminal? Of course it doesn't, it merely tells them "adjust your behavior, or this is where you will end up"
> 
> Oh, and torture absolutely works. If you torture someone, they WILL tell you everything they know, you've been watching too many movies if you believe people can train their minds to ignore the pain and be devious enough to give false information, but even if some manage it, there are people who are trained to separate truth from lies AND it would be stupid to take ANY action based on ANY uncorroborated facts whether obtained from torture or any other means, so the lies wouldn't even do the tortured person any good, even if they COULD lie.
Click to expand...


Absolute fucking bullshit.

Torture doesn't work and has never worked.  The Army knows this, other armies know this, the Church has known this for centuries.  Torture is a vehicle for sadism, nothing more.

To the part in bold, glad you agree.  Now _connect the dots_, Einstein.  I put them in a different colour so that even you can find it.


----------



## Spiderman

Worked on me.

My idiot foster parents used to like to smack me around.

I learned real quick how to stay out of the house and take care of myself.


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a blanket statement is rather inane though.  That is not the only message that spanking can send and I think that declaring it so is completely off base.  I have spanked my eldest three times and physical punishments do have their place though I don&#8217;t see many uses for term.
> 
> All three of those times were in direct relation to violent behavior &#8211; two to others and one in general while throwing a fit that would not be contained.  The message is clear to him &#8211; violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.
> 
> Further, as pointed out through this thread, children are not of the same mold.  They do not react the same to given discipline or reward.  To state blankly that spanking leads to X is to completely gloss over this fact.  Limiting a parent&#8217;s toolkit (other than abuse) without any knowledge of the child itself is asinine to say the least.  I don&#8217;t pretend to know what is best for other parents and their children because I am well aware of the fact that I do NOT know what is best.  I know that I don&#8217;t need to spank my youngest.  I also know that my eldest needs something extra at times.  They are each different and require different disciplinary actions.  If that is so obvious within the same household within brothers I can only imagine how different others children may or may not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone suggested that "spanking = X in every child".  I didn't read that.  But you actually hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not, right here:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That was the original point.  It's a slippery slope and it's all downhill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it&#8217;s not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation.  Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson.  That does not make it a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not.  You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right.  That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever.  It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use.  That does not mean that all children should be spanked.  Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.
> 
> Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO.  I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific.  It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context.  For me at least, anything else is not a spank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time
> 
> I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching".  It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called.  Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).
> 
> Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be.  I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unrealistic at all.  As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your &#8216;definition&#8217; of spank is extremely uncommon.  I haven&#8217;t heard of a parent requiring an &#8216;instrument&#8217; like a belt for a generation.  Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence.  Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario.  Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves.  Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking.  I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child &#8211; he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is.  Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here.  I don&#8217;t know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).
> 
> Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation.  If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action.  That is an action taken in anger and frustration.  Most spankings are not taken in anger &#8211; they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child.  Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.
Click to expand...


Again, a tower of babble to make a distinction without a difference.  I don't think your Pollyanna view is realistic as far as what goes on in the real world.  At all.  If a parent isn't inflicting pain and suffering out of anger -- what's the point?  Why would you pretend to be angry when you're not?  Doesn't add up.

Further, as regards belts -- read the OP.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dukect45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for 10,000 years children were spank as part of an array of punishments to correct bad behavior.
> 
> during this time, child, criminal, violence was very low.
> 
> Now the only acceptable punishment is a time out.
> 
> Since this time, children have started committing crimes that only adults would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> So while there are plenty of studies out, by leftist covering for leftist, the clear results are out in the open for all to see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the violent criminals who are children were more rare in the past but are common now?
> 
> Does this take into account the fact that people were considered adults at an earlier age in the past?
> 
> And what, specifically, are the criminal acts you are talking about?
> 
> Even if your statement is true, is there any evidence that spanking has anything to do with it?
> 
> And I'm no liberal, but yes, I'd love a link.
Click to expand...


Fully agree.  Five lines, five ipse dixits, zero facts, zero links.  Talk is cheap.

Personally I want a link for every one of those "ten thousand years" of child bliss.  With video.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Asclepias said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable and statistically insignificant.  The facts prove that kids raised without real consequences tend to grow up to be entitled, dishonorable, and prone to getting in real trouble.  Sorry, your wonderful children do not overturn a generation of fatherless and parents-as-friends experience.
> 
> And guess what, my father never hit me...he didn't have to because I knew what would be in store if I crossed certain lines, and it wasn't necessarily a spanking but consequences that actually meant something.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence.  Ostracizing is  a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.
Click to expand...


Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that. 

Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO


----------



## BillyZane

Pogo said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you the little dictator here to force his will on everybody.
> 
> Rotsa ruck wit dat.  I can't imagine what you're gonna do if it doesn't go your way -- hit people?  With "STUPID" in all caps?
> 
> Since you brought up the comparison, no torture doesn't work (which has been known for centuries) for much the same reason that spanking doesn't. * As E&#9837;m illustrated, the spankee adjusts his behaviour to avoid harm *-- *not because he's learned why behaviour X is prohibited*.  Same thing with torture-- the torturee tells the torturer what he wants to hear, for the same reason -- to avoid harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the purpose of spanking, or any other form of punishment. Or do you think prison actually teaches anyone not to be a criminal? Of course it doesn't, it merely tells them "adjust your behavior, or this is where you will end up"
> 
> Oh, and torture absolutely works. If you torture someone, they WILL tell you everything they know, you've been watching too many movies if you believe people can train their minds to ignore the pain and be devious enough to give false information, but even if some manage it, there are people who are trained to separate truth from lies AND it would be stupid to take ANY action based on ANY uncorroborated facts whether obtained from torture or any other means, so the lies wouldn't even do the tortured person any good, even if they COULD lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute fucking bullshit.
> 
> Torture doesn't work and has never worked.  The Army knows this, other armies know this, the Church has known this for centuries.  Torture is a vehicle for sadism, nothing more.
> 
> To the part in bold, glad you agree.  Now _connect the dots_, Einstein.  I put them in a different colour so that even you can find it.
Click to expand...


no I won't converse with someone who doesn't respect the forum they are in, I won't report you, but I won't respond to you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Spiderman said:


> Worked on me.
> 
> My idiot foster parents used to like to smack me around.
> 
> I learned real quick how to stay out of the house and take care of myself.



Exactly. 

I was beaten throughout my childhood until my parents abandoned me at 16. As a result of their abuse, my behavior changed but not in the way they had in mind. 

I'm sorry you were abused.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> for 10,000 years children were spank as part of an array of punishments to correct bad behavior.
> 
> during this time, child, criminal, violence was very low.
> 
> Now the only acceptable punishment is a time out.
> 
> Since this time, children have started committing crimes that only adults would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> So while there are plenty of studies out, by leftist covering for leftist, the clear results are out in the open for all to see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the violent criminals who are children were more rare in the past but are common now?
> 
> Does this take into account the fact that people were considered adults at an earlier age in the past?
> 
> And what, specifically, are the criminal acts you are talking about?
> 
> Even if your statement is true, is there any evidence that spanking has anything to do with it?
> 
> And I'm no liberal, but yes, I'd love a link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fully agree.  Five lines, five ipse dixits, zero facts, zero links.  Talk is cheap.
> 
> Personally I want a link for every one of those "ten thousand years" of child bliss.  With video.
Click to expand...


You might be interested in reading this. It does not support the  idea that beating kids resulted in 10K of bliss ... 

The History of Child Abuse

The rest of his writings -

The Institute for Psychohistory


----------



## Asclepias

Luddly Neddite said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable and statistically insignificant.  The facts prove that kids raised without real consequences tend to grow up to be entitled, dishonorable, and prone to getting in real trouble.  Sorry, your wonderful children do not overturn a generation of fatherless and parents-as-friends experience.
> 
> And guess what, my father never hit me...he didn't have to because I knew what would be in store if I crossed certain lines, and it wasn't necessarily a spanking but consequences that actually meant something.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence.  Ostracizing is  a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
Click to expand...


You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.

I just dont get why you would want to physically intimidate or harm your child.  If you know there is a better way. Wouldn't you want to do parenting a better way?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Asclepias said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence.  Ostracizing is  a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
> 
> I just dont get why you would want to physically intimidate or harm your child.  If you know there is a better way. Wouldn't you want to do parenting a better way?
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. I also agree with those who have said that if you hit your child, you have already failed as a parent.

Hitting children is bullying at its worst. Its taking unfair advantage of not only the size difference but also the psychological strength an adult has over a child. 

I hope that someday we see it outlawed completely. Hit a child - Go to jail.


----------



## Montrovant

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the violent criminals who are children were more rare in the past but are common now?
> 
> Does this take into account the fact that people were considered adults at an earlier age in the past?
> 
> And what, specifically, are the criminal acts you are talking about?
> 
> Even if your statement is true, is there any evidence that spanking has anything to do with it?
> 
> And I'm no liberal, but yes, I'd love a link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully agree.  Five lines, five ipse dixits, zero facts, zero links.  Talk is cheap.
> 
> Personally I want a link for every one of those "ten thousand years" of child bliss.  With video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might be interested in reading this. It does not support the  idea that beating kids resulted in 10K of bliss ...
> 
> The History of Child Abuse
> 
> The rest of his writings -
> 
> The Institute for Psychohistory
Click to expand...


Because I am part of this, I just wanted to point out that I consider there to be a definite distinction between spanking and abuse.  I believe one can spank without being abusive.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fully agree.  Five lines, five ipse dixits, zero facts, zero links.  Talk is cheap.
> 
> Personally I want a link for every one of those "ten thousand years" of child bliss.  With video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might be interested in reading this. It does not support the  idea that beating kids resulted in 10K of bliss ...
> 
> The History of Child Abuse
> 
> The rest of his writings -
> 
> The Institute for Psychohistory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am part of this, I just wanted to point out that I consider there to be a definite distinction between spanking and abuse.  I believe one can spank without being abusive.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear because it's excised above, my comment "five lines of ipse dixit / zero links" refers  to this airball post, not to Montrovant's:



Two Thumbs said:


> for 10,000 years children were spank as part of an array of punishments to correct bad behavior.
> 
> during this time, child, criminal, violence was very low.
> 
> Now the only acceptable punishment is a time out.
> 
> Since this time, children have started committing crimes that only adults would ever consider.
> 
> So while there are plenty of studies out, by leftist covering for leftist, the clear results are out in the open for all to see


----------



## Ringel05

Luddly Neddite said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
> 
> I just dont get why you would want to physically intimidate or harm your child.  If you know there is a better way. Wouldn't you want to do parenting a better way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more. I also agree with those who have said that if you hit your child, you have already failed as a parent.
> 
> Hitting children is bullying at its worst. Its taking unfair advantage of not only the size difference but also the psychological strength an adult has over a child.
> 
> I hope that someday we see it outlawed completely. Hit a child - Go to jail.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you should have been spanked more as a child.......


----------



## whitehall

Personally I would never authorize someone to use physical violence against my child but that's because I care. Some people would rather have the government in charge of raising their children.


----------



## Ringel05

I'll state the obvious (should be obvious).
There are those, a very small minority, who think beating their children senseless is acceptable punishment, conversely there are those who think that looking in anger as a child constitutes child abuse.  The reality lies in the middle where most people discipline their children, with little anger, and with love in their hearts.  My parents were of that sort, I was spanked when I deserved it, most will agree it didn't mess me up, others.......  Well they need to buy a mirror.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking works just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... says the poster who also advocates that pot smokers be shot in the face.
> 
> Coincidence?  I think not.
Click to expand...


Psychopathy.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hits children is a loser
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.
Click to expand...


Anyone who claims the two are different is a sick, twisted pervert trying to justify his own perversion.  It's on the same level as defending NAMBLA.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Asclepias said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?
> 
> The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"
> 
> The answer is yes absolutely it work.
> 
> Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"
> 
> Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.
> 
> Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that we would need to define the meaning of "work" in this context. To me "work" would mean to achieve the objective. If my objective is to intimidate then yes it works. If my aim is to teach my child why what they did was wrong then no it does not work nor is it the best way to teach someone anything.
Click to expand...


Often, the objective is no more and no less than the enjoyment of the person doing it.  It really is that simple.


----------



## Ringel05

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the violent criminals who are children were more rare in the past but are common now?
> 
> Does this take into account the fact that people were considered adults at an earlier age in the past?
> 
> And what, specifically, are the criminal acts you are talking about?
> 
> Even if your statement is true, is there any evidence that spanking has anything to do with it?
> 
> And I'm no liberal, but yes, I'd love a link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully agree.  Five lines, five ipse dixits, zero facts, zero links.  Talk is cheap.
> 
> Personally I want a link for every one of those "ten thousand years" of child bliss.  With video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might be interested in reading this. It does not support the  idea that beating kids resulted in 10K of bliss ...
> 
> The History of Child Abuse
> 
> The rest of his writings -
> 
> The Institute for Psychohistory
Click to expand...


Psychohistory?  It has some interesting limited applications.  As for it's validity as a distinct science with verifiable results and conclusions?  That is still up for debate among psychologists.
It is an interesting read, not saying don't read it, just read it in context of valid applicable social science, there is some, some is pure conjecture.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Luddly Neddite said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable and statistically insignificant.  The facts prove that kids raised without real consequences tend to grow up to be entitled, dishonorable, and prone to getting in real trouble.  Sorry, your wonderful children do not overturn a generation of fatherless and parents-as-friends experience.
> 
> And guess what, my father never hit me...he didn't have to because I knew what would be in store if I crossed certain lines, and it wasn't necessarily a spanking but consequences that actually meant something.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence.  Ostracizing is  a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
Click to expand...


I agree.  I have no children because I DESPISE children.  I knew by the time I was 14 that my never breeding would be a service to the human race.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Asclepias said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence.  Ostracizing is  a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
Click to expand...


I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father.  She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like.  When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you."  He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.

His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.)  He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage.  His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.

His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Luddly Neddite said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
> 
> I just dont get why you would want to physically intimidate or harm your child.  If you know there is a better way. Wouldn't you want to do parenting a better way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more. I also agree with those who have said that if you hit your child, you have already failed as a parent.
> 
> Hitting children is bullying at its worst. Its taking unfair advantage of not only the size difference but also the psychological strength an adult has over a child.
> 
> I hope that someday we see it outlawed completely. Hit a child - Go to jail.
Click to expand...


No: hit a child, get executed by crucifixion on live webcast.


----------



## Ringel05

Jarlaxle said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hits children is a loser
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims the two are different is a sick, twisted pervert trying to justify his own perversion.  It's on the same level as defending NAMBLA.
Click to expand...


Many people don't define the two as the same as you do, they see a distinct difference and just because they don't see it your way doesn't make them losers.  It's those who can't see or understand the differentiation in personal views who tend towards the loser designation.  Seems that it fits both in this scenario......


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Jarlaxle said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father.  She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like.  When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you."  He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.
> 
> His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.)  He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage.  His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.
> 
> His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.
Click to expand...


Christ but that is sad. Sounds like my childhood - except, obviously, I didn't succeed in killing myself. I remember my mother telling me that if she had known about abortion the year I was born, I would not be here now. I can remember another dozen little gems like that including the constant threat of being sent to reform school. She wanted to have me lobotomized and I was beaten to the point of broken bones, burned with cigarettes and more. 

I didn't have kids because I was terrified that I would beat them. Fact is, those who were beaten do not grow up to abuse their own but I didn't know that. I have grand kids and have never ever felt the urge to hit one of them. 

Nonetheless, I do believe that some people should not have children and most of them do hit their children.


----------



## Ringel05

Part of the problem with debates such as this is it should be driven by dispassionate, unbiased, objective individuals.  Unfortunately it is driven by impassioned individuals unable to see anything but their own experience wrongly transferring that experience as inclusive for all with no room for argument or dissent.


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.
> 
> Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them.  IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father.  She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like.  When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you."  He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.
> 
> His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.)  He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage.  His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.
> 
> His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.
Click to expand...


I went to school with a kid like that too, who also hung himself.  Same story.  He was a top student and smart as a whip.  Apparently not smart enough.

Also came to the same conclusion as Luddly and Jaraxle about not procreating, for similar reasons.  I know exactly what you guys mean.


----------



## GISMYS

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father.  She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like.  When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you."  He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.
> 
> His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.)  He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage.  His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.
> 
> His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went to school with a kid like that too, who also hung himself.  Same story.  He was a top student and smart as a whip.  Apparently not smart enough.
> 
> Also came to the same conclusion as Luddly and Jaraxle about not procreating, for similar reasons.  I know exactly what you guys mean.
Click to expand...


Yes!!! Satan is on earth to kill and destroy,parents need to teach and warn their children,those that do not do their duty pay a ver very high price!!!


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone suggested that "spanking = X in every child".  I didn't read that.  But you actually hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not, right here:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That was the original point.  It's a slippery slope and it's all downhill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation.  Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson.  That does not make it a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not.  You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right.  That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever.  It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use.  That does not mean that all children should be spanked.  Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.
> 
> Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO.  I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time
> 
> I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching".  It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called.  Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).
> 
> Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be.  I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unrealistic at all.  As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your definition of spank is extremely uncommon.  I havent heard of a parent requiring an instrument like a belt for a generation.  Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence.  Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario.  Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves.  Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking.  I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child  he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is.  Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here.  I dont know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).
> 
> Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation.  If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action.  That is an action taken in anger and frustration.  Most spankings are not taken in anger  they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child.  Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a tower of babble to make a distinction without a difference.  I don't think your Pollyanna view is realistic as far as what goes on in the real world.  At all.  If a parent isn't inflicting pain and suffering out of anger -- what's the point?  Why would you pretend to be angry when you're not?  Doesn't add up.
> 
> Further, as regards belts -- read the OP.
Click to expand...


A complete deflection, why am I not surprised.  I should have expected such with the rest of your posts to others here completely missing the point in what can only be purposeful.

You are not even trying anymore Pogo.


----------



## FA_Q2

I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.

I would note that you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.


----------



## Iceweasel

Jarlaxle said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who hits children is a loser
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims the two are different is a sick, twisted pervert trying to justify his own perversion.  It's on the same level as defending NAMBLA.
Click to expand...

I'm close to filtering you out. I haven't seen a cojent word come off your keyboard. If you want to get into school yard taunts go find a school yard.


----------



## Iceweasel

Jarlaxle said:


> I have no children because I DESPISE children.  I knew by the time I was 14 that my never breeding would be a service to the human race.


Yes, please. Don't breed. Odd that you feel qualified to judge others' mental stability.


----------



## asterism

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys.  Words can maim for life.  People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father.  She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like.  When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you."  He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.
> 
> His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.)  He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage.  His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.
> 
> His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went to school with a kid like that too, who also hung himself.  Same story.  He was a top student and smart as a whip.  Apparently not smart enough.
> 
> Also came to the same conclusion as Luddly and Jaraxle about not procreating, for similar reasons.  I know exactly what you guys mean.
Click to expand...


So you folks are so eager to demonize parenting methods but you don't have kids yourselves?

Predictable.  

It's one thing to civilly disagree (as many have) but some of you people are making false generalizations.


----------



## asterism

Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone suggested that "spanking = X in every child".  I didn't read that.  But you actually hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not, right here:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That was the original point.  It's a slippery slope and it's all downhill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation.  Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson.  That does not make it a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not.  You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right.  That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever.  It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use.  That does not mean that all children should be spanked.  Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.
> 
> Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO.  I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time
> 
> I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching".  It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called.  Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).
> 
> Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be.  I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unrealistic at all.  As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your definition of spank is extremely uncommon.  I havent heard of a parent requiring an instrument like a belt for a generation.  Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence.  Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario.  Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves.  Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking.  I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child  he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is.  Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here.  I dont know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).
> 
> Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation.  If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action.  That is an action taken in anger and frustration.  Most spankings are not taken in anger  they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child.  Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a tower of babble to make a distinction without a difference.  I don't think your Pollyanna view is realistic as far as what goes on in the real world.  At all.  If a parent isn't inflicting pain and suffering out of anger -- what's the point?  Why would you pretend to be angry when you're not?  Doesn't add up.
> 
> Further, as regards belts -- read the OP.
Click to expand...


Taking the cell phone away from my teenage daughter causes more pain for her than any spanking she got ever did.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

FA_Q2 said:


> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.



Evidently, neither do people who have children. 

From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them. 

Now that is ignorance.


----------



## Iceweasel

Luddly Neddite said:


> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.


A homosexual criticizing parental skills. Isn't that quaint?


----------



## asterism

Luddly Neddite said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you just don't understand.  There is a distinction between spanking and hitting just as there is a distinction between poking fun and being mean.


----------



## Chaussette

asterism said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you just don't understand.  There is a distinction between spanking and hitting just as there is a distinction between poking fun and being mean.
Click to expand...

Spanking IS hitting. You hit your child with your hand or a belt, a wooden spoon... 
Hitting children is cowardly.


----------



## asterism

Chaussette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you just don't understand.  There is a distinction between spanking and hitting just as there is a distinction between poking fun and being mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spanking IS hitting. You hit your child with your hand or a belt, a wooden spoon...
> Hitting children is cowardly.
Click to expand...


Spanking is not hitting, there is a difference.  When you equate a tap on the butt to a punch in the face you make things worse for actual abused children.


----------



## Ringel05

Seems like some here would rather emote, walking the line (and occasionally stepping over) between clean debate and flaming.  If you can't be adults and control your emotions maybe you should consider the Flame Zone, Badlands or the Rubber Room as your only soapbox.........


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ringel05 said:


> Seems like some here would rather emote, walking the line (and occasionally stepping over) between clean debate and flaming.  If you can't be adults and control your emotions maybe you should consider the Flame Zone, Badlands or the Rubber Room as your only soapbox.........



You really do need a mirror.


----------



## oldfart

I'm taking a different tack from the entertaining but out of bounds recent series of taunts and invective to point out that a couple of good points have been inadvertently raised.  

Several posters have made passing mention of emotional abuse and compared it to physical abuse.  IMHO emotional abuse can be every bit as damaging to a child as physical abuse.  If we want to rear successful, self-confident, productive, and happy members of society; then we need to ask if all parts of our parenting strategy are consistent with that goal, including how we discipline and correct children.  Anything with a high potential for great harm should be avoided.  

A second point is that I have seen no perfect parents.  I am certainly not a perfect parent, nor is anyone I know of.  We make mistakes, and sometimes our children suffer because of those mistakes.  It doesn't help to get too worked up about it.  Kids are pretty adaptable.  I seriously doubt that if a parent loses their temper once and slaps a kid around in anger that the child is scarred for life. Of course that doesn't make it a good idea or excuse the behavior.  It still is a bad lesson for the child.  

I see a strong connection between how posters recall their own childhood and what they think good parenting consists of.  If all of your childhood memories are warm and fuzzy that's great.  If not, there are probably some things you wish had been done differently.    This is probably a good place to start with how you rear your own kids.  

Maybe the problem with this thread is that it has focused too narrowly on discipline.  Perhaps a wide range of discipline styles all work for parents who think about what lessons they want their children to learn, what kind of adults they want their children to grow into, who love their children and let them know it, and spend time with their children.  

Now we can resume the insults.


----------



## Wake

In my own imperfect opinion, spanking shouldn't be illegal. If people don't want to spank their children, that is absolutely their right and I'll support it any day of the week. The same goes for people who believe in spanking their children. Guys, please, so long as we aren't trying to stop people from or forcing people to spank their little ones, we should all just relax, chill, sip some Joe, and try to understand each other better.

We ALL love our children. If you're reading this, look at everyone else here in this thread and acknowledge that every mother and father here loves their little ones so much. The whole big deal ain't one. We just disagree on the ways we go about disciplining our offspring. Let's try to get along and make a real attempt at trying to understand one another. This discussion would be so much nicer if we lowered our weapons and really, really tried to convey our experiences in a peaceful, respectful manner. 

I think our children deserve that, because we are their examples... and they are our future.


----------



## Asclepias

I think any form of physical punishment for children should be outlawed. I've seen both extremes and its not a pretty sight. I know one guy in prison for killing his father due to the physical and mental abuse he suffered as a child.  I know a woman who is a train wreck due to her parents trying to befriend her and withhold all punishment.  IMHO raising your child can be done without ever laying a finger on them. It is more difficult especially if your child is willful but the results are outstanding.  I relate raising children to training dogs.  The same principles apply. You start young. You give them lots of opportunities to succeed. You give them as many yes's as possible. You limit the no's to whats absolutely necessary. You over celebrate their victories and use their losses as learning opportunities.  Your disapproval is more than enough to punish a child if you have done everything else at least halfway right.


----------



## BillyZane

asterism said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation.  Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson.  That does not make it a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not.  You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right.  That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever.  It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use.  That does not mean that all children should be spanked.  Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.
> 
> Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO.  I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:
> 
> It is not unrealistic at all.  As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your definition of spank is extremely uncommon.  I havent heard of a parent requiring an instrument like a belt for a generation.  Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence.  Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario.  Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves.  Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking.  I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child  he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is.  Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here.  I dont know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).
> 
> Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation.  If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action.  That is an action taken in anger and frustration.  Most spankings are not taken in anger  they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child.  Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, a tower of babble to make a distinction without a difference.  I don't think your Pollyanna view is realistic as far as what goes on in the real world.  At all.  If a parent isn't inflicting pain and suffering out of anger -- what's the point?  Why would you pretend to be angry when you're not?  Doesn't add up.
> 
> Further, as regards belts -- read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking the cell phone away from my teenage daughter causes more pain for her than any spanking she got ever did.
Click to expand...


and that is where judgement comes into play. You judge that for YOUR child taking her phone away is the appropriate punishment. Meanwhile some other child may not respond at all to such punishment, but respond very well to spankings.


----------



## Wake

Asclepias said:


> I think any form of physical punishment for children should be outlawed. I've seen both extremes and its not a pretty sight. I know one guy in prison for killing his father due to the physical and mental abuse he suffered as a child.  I know a woman who is a train wreck due to her parents trying to befriend her and withhold all punishment.  IMHO raising your child can be done without ever laying a finger on them. It is more difficult especially if your child is willful but the results are outstanding.  I relate raising children to training dogs.  The same principles apply. You start young. You give them lots of opportunities to succeed. You give them as many yes's as possible. You limit the no's to whats absolutely necessary. You over celebrate their victories and use their losses as learning opportunities.  Your disapproval is more than enough to punish a child if you have done everything else at least halfway right.



Asclepias, there are two things I want you to know before we discuss this further. 1), I respect you. 2), you're OK in my book. That said, we disagree a bit on some stuff.

Physical punishment should be legal, so long as it doesn't cross any boundaries. Using a paddle or a hand on the rump is very different then slapping or punching the face, or beating, kicking punching, etc. Evolution made it so that the butt has fat on it, to make sitting more comfortable, while also making disciplining your children easier for both of you.  

Sometimes young kids are little demons. I was one of them. Reasoning didn't work. You couldn't reason with me, therefore, you _couldn't_ stop me. Little ones with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder can be so hyper and inattentive that only a few things will drive the message into the brain, and ensure it's remembered. And along the lines of being a hyper, evil, and intelligent brat, I soon learned that buying my love and obedience could be abused by me. Hitler did it, too. Sending me to my room did nothing, because video games. Having me stand in the corner did nothing but give me time to collect and organize my evil plans. Every little chink in my parents' armor was learned and abused, making it easy to come out ahead in bargaining.

Then the day came when it all stopped. I learned fear. After breaking something else Mom and Dad brought me into the living room, and I was notified that my butt was going to be spanked. This was new to me, because everything had been going so well. The very thought of this impending attack on my behind made me think that maybe, just maybe, my parents wouldn't lay down and take it any more. So with the bending of my body over Dad's knee, and the torture of the eternal two minutes, fear was not only learned... but remembered. Needless to say, so did respect. And with that my dreams of global domination came to an end.

If you my friend can get your children to obey you without having to spank their behinds, you are fortunate. That is rare, and was certainly not the case for my parents. Interestingly enough, we trained our puppy by scruffing her as punishment for biting people, running away, etc. She was a very loving, obedient, loyal sweetheart, and never got in trouble with the pound. 

What you've mentioned about celebrating their victories and using their losses as learning opportunities is good, and I could see using that side-by-side with spanking out really bad behavior (maybe a caveat here would be to not over-celebrate, though?). If you were my parent, and I was very young, you would have to control me with spanking (give me very good reason to fear, respect, and obey you), or I'd likely burn your house down because no one's given me reason to not dare explore with matches.

Sometimes spanking is necessary and justified, and if you have reason to do so as a parent, you also have to keep it in moderation.


----------



## Ringel05

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like some here would rather emote, walking the line (and occasionally stepping over) between clean debate and flaming.  If you can't be adults and control your emotions maybe you should consider the Flame Zone, Badlands or the Rubber Room as your only soapbox.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do need a mirror.
Click to expand...


That was an observation I made based on the dispassionate.  Given your posting in this thread I would say your usage is anything but dispassionate or objective.  Not that it wasn't unexpected, unfortunately.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual criticizing parental skills. Isn't that quaint?
Click to expand...


I was married once to a beautiful, well-raised woman whose father was gay. Imagine that!


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it&#8217;s not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation.  Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson.  That does not make it a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not.  You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right.  That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever.  It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use.  That does not mean that all children should be spanked.  Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.
> 
> Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO.  I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:
> 
> It is not unrealistic at all.  As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your &#8216;definition&#8217; of spank is extremely uncommon.  I haven&#8217;t heard of a parent requiring an &#8216;instrument&#8217; like a belt for a generation.  Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence.  Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario.  Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves.  Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking.  I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child &#8211; he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is.  Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here.  I don&#8217;t know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).
> 
> Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation.  If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action.  That is an action taken in anger and frustration.  Most spankings are not taken in anger &#8211; they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child.  Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, a tower of babble to make a distinction without a difference.  I don't think your Pollyanna view is realistic as far as what goes on in the real world.  At all.  If a parent isn't inflicting pain and suffering out of anger -- what's the point?  Why would you pretend to be angry when you're not?  Doesn't add up.
> 
> Further, as regards belts -- read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A complete deflection, why am I not surprised.  I should have expected such with the rest of your posts to others here completely missing the point in what can only be purposeful.
> 
> You are not even trying anymore Pogo.
Click to expand...


"Deflection"??
You're making distinctions that I think are unconnected to the real world, and I said so.  Would that these distinctions actually existed, but that's not how I see it at all.  If you can't handle that my view and experience contrasts sharply with that idea (and I've got quite a few years on you) then oh well.  

I feel I posted a lot of words for "not trying" but if I expended few on this particular post it's because I didn't see much in it.


----------



## Pogo

asterism said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father.  She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like.  When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you."  He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.
> 
> His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.)  He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage.  His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.
> 
> His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to school with a kid like that too, who also hung himself.  Same story.  He was a top student and smart as a whip.  Apparently not smart enough.
> 
> Also came to the same conclusion as Luddly and Jaraxle about not procreating, for similar reasons.  I know exactly what you guys mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you folks are so eager to demonize parenting methods but you don't have kids yourselves?
> 
> Predictable.
> 
> It's one thing to civilly disagree (as many have) but some of you people are making false generalizations.
Click to expand...


No, not "predictable"... the word is _responsible_.


----------



## Pogo

Luddly Neddite said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that *you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one*.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
Click to expand...


Yeah right.  None of us have ever _been _children.  We have no idea because we're "completely and totally ignorant" of what that could be like.


----------



## Pogo

asterism said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you just don't understand.  There is a distinction between spanking and hitting just as there is a distinction between poking fun and being mean.
Click to expand...


Again -- if spanking is like "poking fun" then I have no clue what spanking is, as I've never seen it.


----------



## Asclepias

Wake said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think any form of physical punishment for children should be outlawed. I've seen both extremes and its not a pretty sight. I know one guy in prison for killing his father due to the physical and mental abuse he suffered as a child.  I know a woman who is a train wreck due to her parents trying to befriend her and withhold all punishment.  IMHO raising your child can be done without ever laying a finger on them. It is more difficult especially if your child is willful but the results are outstanding.  I relate raising children to training dogs.  The same principles apply. You start young. You give them lots of opportunities to succeed. You give them as many yes's as possible. You limit the no's to whats absolutely necessary. You over celebrate their victories and use their losses as learning opportunities.  Your disapproval is more than enough to punish a child if you have done everything else at least halfway right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias, there are two things I want you to know before we discuss this further. 1), I respect you. 2), you're OK in my book. That said, we disagree a bit on some stuff.
> 
> Physical punishment should be legal, so long as it doesn't cross any boundaries. Using a paddle or a hand on the rump is very different then slapping or punching the face, or beating, kicking punching, etc. Evolution made it so that the butt has fat on it, to make sitting more comfortable, while also making disciplining your children easier for both of you.
> 
> Sometimes young kids are little demons. I was one of them. Reasoning didn't work. You couldn't reason with me, therefore, you _couldn't_ stop me. Little ones with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder can be so hyper and inattentive that only a few things will drive the message into the brain, and ensure it's remembered. And along the lines of being a hyper, evil, and intelligent brat, I soon learned that buying my love and obedience could be abused by me. Hitler did it, too. Sending me to my room did nothing, because video games. Having me stand in the corner did nothing but give me time to collect and organize my evil plans. Every little chink in my parents' armor was learned and abused, making it easy to come out ahead in bargaining.
> 
> Then the day came when it all stopped. I learned fear. After breaking something else Mom and Dad brought me into the living room, and I was notified that my butt was going to be spanked. This was new to me, because everything had been going so well. The very thought of this impending attack on my behind made me think that maybe, just maybe, my parents wouldn't lay down and take it any more. So with the bending of my body over Dad's knee, and the torture of the eternal two minutes, fear was not only learned... but remembered. Needless to say, so did respect. And with that my dreams of global domination came to an end.
> 
> If you my friend can get your children to obey you without having to spank their behinds, you are fortunate. That is rare, and was certainly not the case for my parents. Interestingly enough, we trained our puppy by scruffing her as punishment for biting people, running away, etc. She was a very loving, obedient, loyal sweetheart, and never got in trouble with the pound.
> 
> What you've mentioned about celebrating their victories and using their losses as learning opportunities is good, and I could see using that side-by-side with spanking out really bad behavior (maybe a caveat here would be to not over-celebrate, though?). If you were my parent, and I was very young, you would have to control me with spanking (give me very good reason to fear, respect, and obey you), or I'd likely burn your house down because no one's given me reason to not dare explore with matches.
> 
> Sometimes spanking is necessary and justified, and if you have reason to do so as a parent, you also have to keep it in moderation.
Click to expand...


I would never take disagreement as disrespect. Thanks for letting me know. I respect you as well and you awwright. 

The reason I think physical punishment should be illegal is simply because of where you draw the line. A spanking to one person may look like abuse to another. If I beat my kids less than I was beat then I might think it was ok to do it because it was not as bad as what I received.  I believe there are some kids out there that do not respond initially to timeouts and reasoning.  Those "little demons" would try the patience of a saint. In my experience I have never met a child that doesn't respond eventually to timeouts and reasonings.  That being said I have not met every child so I could be totally wrong.  

The short time before my parents decided to stop spanking us, spankings only made me mean and evil.  I had no fear of anything as a child and I have always had a high pain threshold. I would rather get spanked then be put on punishment.  Punishment killed me because I could not do the things I wanted to.  What was even worse was when I did something that disappointed my mother.  I felt like I had somehow let her down and it made me want to be a better kid.

Just hearing the different stories about others posters childhoods makes me realize just how much we dictate reality through our own personal filters and rationalizations.


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual criticizing parental skills. Isn't that quaint?
> 
> 
> 
> I was married once to a beautiful, well-raised woman whose father was gay. Imagine that!
Click to expand...

I thought people were born gay? Imagine that.


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual criticizing parental skills. Isn't that quaint?
> 
> 
> 
> I was married once to a beautiful, well-raised woman whose father was gay. Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought people were born gay? Imagine that.
Click to expand...


????


----------



## JimH52

My wife and I were foster parents during the days when spanking was allowed.  I was president of my state association of FP when the ruling from the state came down outlawing spanking.  A lot of FP just gave it up.  We went through intensive training to teach FP different methods of discipline.

It seems to me that spanking had its place, but this is a new generation.  Many kids would rather be spanked than go through the process of consequence.  The fine line between spanking for discipline and parental abuse has taken the former off the board.

So the answer to your question is, Yes, it does work with some kids.  But No, it is no longer an option in today's society.


----------



## Pogo

Asclepias said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think any form of physical punishment for children should be outlawed. I've seen both extremes and its not a pretty sight. I know one guy in prison for killing his father due to the physical and mental abuse he suffered as a child.  I know a woman who is a train wreck due to her parents trying to befriend her and withhold all punishment.  IMHO raising your child can be done without ever laying a finger on them. It is more difficult especially if your child is willful but the results are outstanding.  I relate raising children to training dogs.  The same principles apply. You start young. You give them lots of opportunities to succeed. You give them as many yes's as possible. You limit the no's to whats absolutely necessary. You over celebrate their victories and use their losses as learning opportunities.  Your disapproval is more than enough to punish a child if you have done everything else at least halfway right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias, there are two things I want you to know before we discuss this further. 1), I respect you. 2), you're OK in my book. That said, we disagree a bit on some stuff.
> 
> Physical punishment should be legal, so long as it doesn't cross any boundaries. Using a paddle or a hand on the rump is very different then slapping or punching the face, or beating, kicking punching, etc. Evolution made it so that the butt has fat on it, to make sitting more comfortable, while also making disciplining your children easier for both of you.
> 
> Sometimes young kids are little demons. I was one of them. Reasoning didn't work. You couldn't reason with me, therefore, you _couldn't_ stop me. Little ones with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder can be so hyper and inattentive that only a few things will drive the message into the brain, and ensure it's remembered. And along the lines of being a hyper, evil, and intelligent brat, I soon learned that buying my love and obedience could be abused by me. Hitler did it, too. Sending me to my room did nothing, because video games. Having me stand in the corner did nothing but give me time to collect and organize my evil plans. Every little chink in my parents' armor was learned and abused, making it easy to come out ahead in bargaining.
> 
> Then the day came when it all stopped. I learned fear. After breaking something else Mom and Dad brought me into the living room, and I was notified that my butt was going to be spanked. This was new to me, because everything had been going so well. The very thought of this impending attack on my behind made me think that maybe, just maybe, my parents wouldn't lay down and take it any more. So with the bending of my body over Dad's knee, and the torture of the eternal two minutes, fear was not only learned... but remembered. Needless to say, so did respect. And with that my dreams of global domination came to an end.
> 
> If you my friend can get your children to obey you without having to spank their behinds, you are fortunate. That is rare, and was certainly not the case for my parents. Interestingly enough, we trained our puppy by scruffing her as punishment for biting people, running away, etc. She was a very loving, obedient, loyal sweetheart, and never got in trouble with the pound.
> 
> What you've mentioned about celebrating their victories and using their losses as learning opportunities is good, and I could see using that side-by-side with spanking out really bad behavior (maybe a caveat here would be to not over-celebrate, though?). If you were my parent, and I was very young, you would have to control me with spanking (give me very good reason to fear, respect, and obey you), or I'd likely burn your house down because no one's given me reason to not dare explore with matches.
> 
> Sometimes spanking is necessary and justified, and if you have reason to do so as a parent, you also have to keep it in moderation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never take disagreement as disrespect. Thanks for letting me know. I respect you as well and you awwright.
> 
> The reason I think physical punishment should be illegal is simply because of where you draw the line. A spanking to one person may look like abuse to another. If I beat my kids less than I was beat then I might think it was ok to do it because it was not as bad as what I received.  I believe there are some kids out there that do not respond initially to timeouts and reasoning.  Those "little demons" would try the patience of a saint. In my experience I have never met a child that doesn't respond eventually to timeouts and reasonings.  That being said I have not met every child so I could be totally wrong.
> 
> The short time before my parents decided to stop spanking us, spankings only made me mean and evil.  I had no fear of anything as a child and I have always had a high pain threshold. I would rather get spanked then be put on punishment.  Punishment killed me because I could not do the things I wanted to.  What was even worse was when I did something that disappointed my mother.  I felt like I had somehow let her down and it made me want to be a better kid.
> 
> Just hearing the different stories about others posters childhoods makes me realize just how much we dictate reality through our own personal filters and rationalizations.
Click to expand...


Between these two views (yours and Wake's) I have to side with the latter.  As a Liberal I feel throwing legislating at the problem is always a slippery slope.  More effective is to change the *culture *-- so that the idea of violence and personal abuse is repulsive all by itself.  It's the same as my view on gun violence.

And not unrelated, given our obsession with violence common to both.


----------



## BillyZane

Here's a fact.

There is a direct correlation between spanking going out of fashion as a parenting technique and the number of ADHD kids we see out there.

When I was a kid if you weren't paying attention in class you got sent to the principle's office and paddled, then you got another one when you got home. Attention deficit corrected.

Today, they get sent to the nurse and given an Ambien.

I mean seriously. No child has ever been harmed by a good old fashioned spanking and I suggest that any parent who says "no way not under ANY circumstances" is NOT doing their child any favors.


----------



## BillyZane

JimH52 said:


> My wife and I were foster parents during the days when spanking was allowed.  I was president of my state association of FP when the ruling from the state came down outlawing spanking.  A lot of FP just gave it up.  We went through intensive training to teach FP different methods of discipline.
> 
> It seems to me that spanking had its place, but this is a new generation.  Many kids would rather be spanked than go through the process of consequence.  The fine line between spanking for discipline and parental abuse has taken the former off the board.
> 
> So the answer to your question is, Yes, it does work with some kids.  But No, it is no longer an option in today's society.



speak for yourself, I spank my child when necessary.


----------



## Pogo

BillyZane said:


> *Here's a fact.*
> 
> There is a direct correlation between spanking going out of fashion as a parenting technique and the number of ADHD kids we see out there.
> 
> When I was a kid if you weren't paying attention in class you got sent to the principle's office and paddled, then you got another one when you got home. Attention deficit corrected.
> 
> Today, they get sent to the nurse and given an Ambien.
> 
> I mean seriously. No child has ever been harmed by a good old fashioned spanking and I suggest that any parent who says "no way not under ANY circumstances" is NOT doing their child any favors.






Here's a tool: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Use it.  Because without it you haven't brought a "fact" just on your say-so.

Nomsayin'?


----------



## Wake

BillyZane said:


> Here's a fact.
> 
> There is a direct correlation between spanking going out of fashion as a parenting technique and the number of ADHD kids we see out there.
> 
> When I was a kid if you weren't paying attention in class you got sent to the principle's office and paddled, then you got another one when you got home. Attention deficit corrected.
> 
> Today, they get sent to the nurse and given an Ambien.
> 
> I mean seriously. No child has ever been harmed by a good old fashioned spanking and I suggest that any parent who says "no way not under ANY circumstances" is NOT doing their child any favors.



Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact.
> 
> There is a direct correlation between spanking going out of fashion as a parenting technique and the number of ADHD kids we see out there.
> 
> When I was a kid if you weren't paying attention in class you got sent to the principle's office and paddled, then you got another one when you got home. Attention deficit corrected.
> 
> Today, they get sent to the nurse and given an Ambien.
> 
> I mean seriously. No child has ever been harmed by a good old fashioned spanking and I suggest that any parent who says "no way not under ANY circumstances" is NOT doing their child any favors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.
Click to expand...


Great question, because that guy based on his posts seems to be all about "my way or the highway".  Even threatened to 'report' me for disagreeing with him.  That's the kind of personality that gives me pause when thinking about concepts of corporal punishment and judgement.


----------



## BillyZane

Wake said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact.
> 
> There is a direct correlation between spanking going out of fashion as a parenting technique and the number of ADHD kids we see out there.
> 
> When I was a kid if you weren't paying attention in class you got sent to the principle's office and paddled, then you got another one when you got home. Attention deficit corrected.
> 
> Today, they get sent to the nurse and given an Ambien.
> 
> I mean seriously. No child has ever been harmed by a good old fashioned spanking and I suggest that any parent who says "no way not under ANY circumstances" is NOT doing their child any favors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.
Click to expand...


Sure, let me elaborate. I am differentiating between actual medical conditions, and kids who just won't act appropriately.

When I was in school nigh on 25 years ago, we didn't know any kids with attention deficit disorder, yet today every third student has it. I doubt that a medical condition has became that much more prevalent in 25 years. If it has, then we need to be discussing why that is so.

In short, I think many kids who are today diagnosed with ADHD just need to be spanked. That doesn't mean real cases dont exist, I just think it's overly diagnosed. Much easier to give your child a pill than it is to actually parent them.


----------



## BillyZane

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact.
> 
> There is a direct correlation between spanking going out of fashion as a parenting technique and the number of ADHD kids we see out there.
> 
> When I was a kid if you weren't paying attention in class you got sent to the principle's office and paddled, then you got another one when you got home. Attention deficit corrected.
> 
> Today, they get sent to the nurse and given an Ambien.
> 
> I mean seriously. No child has ever been harmed by a good old fashioned spanking and I suggest that any parent who says "no way not under ANY circumstances" is NOT doing their child any favors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great question, because that guy based on his posts seems to be all about "my way or the highway".  Even threatened to 'report' me for disagreeing with him.  That's the kind of personality that gives me pause when thinking about concepts of corporal punishment and judgement.
Click to expand...


I can only assume you're talking about me, and I certainly didn't threaten you in any way , shape, or form.


----------



## Asclepias

Pogo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias, there are two things I want you to know before we discuss this further. 1), I respect you. 2), you're OK in my book. That said, we disagree a bit on some stuff.
> 
> Physical punishment should be legal, so long as it doesn't cross any boundaries. Using a paddle or a hand on the rump is very different then slapping or punching the face, or beating, kicking punching, etc. Evolution made it so that the butt has fat on it, to make sitting more comfortable, while also making disciplining your children easier for both of you.
> 
> Sometimes young kids are little demons. I was one of them. Reasoning didn't work. You couldn't reason with me, therefore, you _couldn't_ stop me. Little ones with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder can be so hyper and inattentive that only a few things will drive the message into the brain, and ensure it's remembered. And along the lines of being a hyper, evil, and intelligent brat, I soon learned that buying my love and obedience could be abused by me. Hitler did it, too. Sending me to my room did nothing, because video games. Having me stand in the corner did nothing but give me time to collect and organize my evil plans. Every little chink in my parents' armor was learned and abused, making it easy to come out ahead in bargaining.
> 
> Then the day came when it all stopped. I learned fear. After breaking something else Mom and Dad brought me into the living room, and I was notified that my butt was going to be spanked. This was new to me, because everything had been going so well. The very thought of this impending attack on my behind made me think that maybe, just maybe, my parents wouldn't lay down and take it any more. So with the bending of my body over Dad's knee, and the torture of the eternal two minutes, fear was not only learned... but remembered. Needless to say, so did respect. And with that my dreams of global domination came to an end.
> 
> If you my friend can get your children to obey you without having to spank their behinds, you are fortunate. That is rare, and was certainly not the case for my parents. Interestingly enough, we trained our puppy by scruffing her as punishment for biting people, running away, etc. She was a very loving, obedient, loyal sweetheart, and never got in trouble with the pound.
> 
> What you've mentioned about celebrating their victories and using their losses as learning opportunities is good, and I could see using that side-by-side with spanking out really bad behavior (maybe a caveat here would be to not over-celebrate, though?). If you were my parent, and I was very young, you would have to control me with spanking (give me very good reason to fear, respect, and obey you), or I'd likely burn your house down because no one's given me reason to not dare explore with matches.
> 
> Sometimes spanking is necessary and justified, and if you have reason to do so as a parent, you also have to keep it in moderation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never take disagreement as disrespect. Thanks for letting me know. I respect you as well and you awwright.
> 
> The reason I think physical punishment should be illegal is simply because of where you draw the line. A spanking to one person may look like abuse to another. If I beat my kids less than I was beat then I might think it was ok to do it because it was not as bad as what I received.  I believe there are some kids out there that do not respond initially to timeouts and reasoning.  Those "little demons" would try the patience of a saint. In my experience I have never met a child that doesn't respond eventually to timeouts and reasonings.  That being said I have not met every child so I could be totally wrong.
> 
> The short time before my parents decided to stop spanking us, spankings only made me mean and evil.  I had no fear of anything as a child and I have always had a high pain threshold. I would rather get spanked then be put on punishment.  Punishment killed me because I could not do the things I wanted to.  What was even worse was when I did something that disappointed my mother.  I felt like I had somehow let her down and it made me want to be a better kid.
> 
> Just hearing the different stories about others posters childhoods makes me realize just how much we dictate reality through our own personal filters and rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between these two views (yours and Wake's) I have to side with the latter.  As a Liberal I feel throwing legislating at the problem is always a slippery slope.  More effective is to change the *culture *-- so that the idea of violence and personal abuse is repulsive all by itself.  It's the same as my view on gun violence.
> 
> And not unrelated, given our obsession with violence common to both.
Click to expand...


Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people. In the wild west it was ok to have gun fights on main street. At another time it was ok to fight dogs.  At what point do you stop waiting for culture to change in order to stop heinous acts no matter how accepted they are?


----------



## Pogo

Asclepias said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never take disagreement as disrespect. Thanks for letting me know. I respect you as well and you awwright.
> 
> The reason I think physical punishment should be illegal is simply because of where you draw the line. A spanking to one person may look like abuse to another. If I beat my kids less than I was beat then I might think it was ok to do it because it was not as bad as what I received.  I believe there are some kids out there that do not respond initially to timeouts and reasoning.  Those "little demons" would try the patience of a saint. In my experience I have never met a child that doesn't respond eventually to timeouts and reasonings.  That being said I have not met every child so I could be totally wrong.
> 
> The short time before my parents decided to stop spanking us, spankings only made me mean and evil.  I had no fear of anything as a child and I have always had a high pain threshold. I would rather get spanked then be put on punishment.  Punishment killed me because I could not do the things I wanted to.  What was even worse was when I did something that disappointed my mother.  I felt like I had somehow let her down and it made me want to be a better kid.
> 
> Just hearing the different stories about others posters childhoods makes me realize just how much we dictate reality through our own personal filters and rationalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between these two views (yours and Wake's) I have to side with the latter.  As a Liberal I feel throwing legislating at the problem is always a slippery slope.  More effective is to change the *culture *-- so that the idea of violence and personal abuse is repulsive all by itself.  It's the same as my view on gun violence.
> 
> And not unrelated, given our obsession with violence common to both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people. In the wild west it was ok to have gun fights on main street. At another time it was ok to fight dogs.  At what point do you stop waiting for culture to change in order to stop heinous acts no matter how accepted they are?
Click to expand...


I hear ya but I don't think anti-lynching laws were at all unreasonable.  Nor is criminal child abuse, that's fine.  I'd draw the line before making any and all spanking illegal though, even though I can't support the practice morally.  It's just too slippery a slope for legislation.  It would bring a judicial morass.

And I don't believe culture changes passively by waiting for it but by actively driving it by public opinion.  Laws tend to follow public opinion anyway, not lead it.  So what we're doing right here is a part of that active process.  Bottom line is that popular behavior doesn't change because it's forced to by law; it changes because it _desires_ the change.  So the objective is to persuade the desire.


----------



## Wake

BillyZane said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact.
> 
> There is a direct correlation between spanking going out of fashion as a parenting technique and the number of ADHD kids we see out there.
> 
> When I was a kid if you weren't paying attention in class you got sent to the principle's office and paddled, then you got another one when you got home. Attention deficit corrected.
> 
> Today, they get sent to the nurse and given an Ambien.
> 
> I mean seriously. No child has ever been harmed by a good old fashioned spanking and I suggest that any parent who says "no way not under ANY circumstances" is NOT doing their child any favors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, let me elaborate. I am differentiating between actual medical conditions, and kids who just won't act appropriately.
> 
> When I was in school nigh on 25 years ago, we didn't know any kids with attention deficit disorder, yet today every third student has it. I doubt that a medical condition has became that much more prevalent in 25 years. If it has, then we need to be discussing why that is so.
> 
> In short, I think many kids who are today diagnosed with ADHD just need to be spanked. That doesn't mean real cases dont exist, I just think it's overly diagnosed. Much easier to give your child a pill than it is to actually parent them.
Click to expand...


...ADHD is an actual medical condition. One may not be sure if it's credible, but WebMD.com seems to have ADHD as a medical issue. You appear to be implying that ADHD is simply kids not acting appropriately, and that it isn't an actual medical condition. This is asked with much restraint: Are you a medical professional? 

200 years ago, many people didn't know about much medical conditions, yet today it seems quite a few more have them now than before. I suspect it is because of research. While there's no dispute that ADHD does exist, it wouldn't be surprising if some were diagnosed with ADHD who don't have it. But, please consider that there are also those who have it who haven't been diagnosed. It's true that there have been people in their 40's just now learning they have the disorder.

Progression of time allows progression of research, which means more knowledge. ADHD may indeed be becoming more prevalent because more people are becoming aware of it. Billy, did you know that there are variations of ADHD? Cases do exist because ADHD does exist; it may be that some are over-diagnosed while others go un-diagnosed. Spanking a child with or without ADHD for doing very bad, dangerous things is fine with me. If my parents didn't spank me I'd probably be dead or in jail. I know parents can parent and discipline their children while giving them a proper medication to help with their disorder.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wake said:


> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.


What I know about it is that there are a LOT of kids diagnosed with it. You don't really think they are all chemically imbalanced do you? If so, how did that happen so recently?


----------



## BillyZane

Wake said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, let me elaborate. I am differentiating between actual medical conditions, and kids who just won't act appropriately.
> 
> When I was in school nigh on 25 years ago, we didn't know any kids with attention deficit disorder, yet today every third student has it. I doubt that a medical condition has became that much more prevalent in 25 years. If it has, then we need to be discussing why that is so.
> 
> In short, I think many kids who are today diagnosed with ADHD just need to be spanked. That doesn't mean real cases dont exist, I just think it's overly diagnosed. Much easier to give your child a pill than it is to actually parent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...ADHD is an actual medical condition. One may not be sure if it's credible, but WebMD.com seems to have ADHD as a medical issue. You appear to be implying that ADHD is simply kids not acting appropriately, and that it isn't an actual medical condition. This is asked with much restraint: Are you a medical professional?
> 
> 200 years ago, many people didn't know about much medical conditions, yet today it seems quite a few more have them now than before. I suspect it is because of research. While there's no dispute that ADHD does exist, it wouldn't be surprising if some were diagnosed with ADHD who don't have it. But, please consider that there are also those who have it who haven't been diagnosed. It's true that there have been people in their 40's just now learning they have the disorder.
> 
> Progression of time allows progression of research, which means more knowledge. ADHD may indeed be becoming more prevalent because more people are becoming aware of it. Billy, did you know that there are variations of ADHD? Cases do exist because ADHD does exist; it may be that some are over-diagnosed while others go un-diagnosed. Spanking a child with or without ADHD for doing very bad, dangerous things is fine with me. If my parents didn't spank me I'd probably be dead or in jail. I know parents can parent and discipline their children while giving them a proper medication to help with their disorder.
Click to expand...



I implied no such thing, and in fact I SPECIFICALLY stated that I know that some kids DO have ADHD, I merely stated that is over diagnosed.


----------



## Iceweasel

Asclepias said:


> Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people....


LOL, I couldn't make it past that.


----------



## Pogo

BillyZane said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great question, because that guy based on his posts seems to be all about "my way or the highway".  Even threatened to 'report' me for disagreeing with him.  That's the kind of personality that gives me pause when thinking about concepts of corporal punishment and judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only assume you're talking about me, and I certainly didn't threaten you in any way , shape, or form.
Click to expand...


You're right, it was an empty "threat".  But you thought it was real.


----------



## Wake

Iceweasel said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having ADHD, and knowing that it is genetically inheritable, I'd like to better understand your views. Spanking your child won't cure his or her chemical imbalance in the brain. Did you know that those unfortunate children with ADHD were often beaten more than others, because people were ignorant of the disorder? I agree with you that moderate spanking is an effective and acceptable means to discipline children, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on your knowledge of Attention-Deficit HYperactivity Disorder, please.
> 
> 
> 
> What I know about it is that there are a LOT of kids diagnosed with it. You don't really think they are all chemically imbalanced do you? If so, how did that happen so recently?
Click to expand...


A majority of those diagnoses may indeed be accurate. The disorder takes many forms; there are at least 10 variations. I acknowledge that some people are diagnosed when they don't have ADHD, but beyond that I don't know specifics. Those who do have the disorder are chemically imbalanced; those who truly don't have it... I'm not sure why they were diagnosed. One reason for the influx may be because research in ADHD has made huge gains with its existence being acknowledged.



BillyZane said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, let me elaborate. I am differentiating between actual medical conditions, and kids who just won't act appropriately.
> 
> When I was in school nigh on 25 years ago, we didn't know any kids with attention deficit disorder, yet today every third student has it. I doubt that a medical condition has became that much more prevalent in 25 years. If it has, then we need to be discussing why that is so.
> 
> In short, I think many kids who are today diagnosed with ADHD just need to be spanked. That doesn't mean real cases dont exist, I just think it's overly diagnosed. Much easier to give your child a pill than it is to actually parent them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...ADHD is an actual medical condition. One may not be sure if it's credible, but WebMD.com seems to have ADHD as a medical issue. You appear to be implying that ADHD is simply kids not acting appropriately, and that it isn't an actual medical condition. This is asked with much restraint: Are you a medical professional?
> 
> 200 years ago, many people didn't know about much medical conditions, yet today it seems quite a few more have them now than before. I suspect it is because of research. While there's no dispute that ADHD does exist, it wouldn't be surprising if some were diagnosed with ADHD who don't have it. But, please consider that there are also those who have it who haven't been diagnosed. It's true that there have been people in their 40's just now learning they have the disorder.
> 
> Progression of time allows progression of research, which means more knowledge. ADHD may indeed be becoming more prevalent because more people are becoming aware of it. Billy, did you know that there are variations of ADHD? Cases do exist because ADHD does exist; it may be that some are over-diagnosed while others go un-diagnosed. Spanking a child with or without ADHD for doing very bad, dangerous things is fine with me. If my parents didn't spank me I'd probably be dead or in jail. I know parents can parent and discipline their children while giving them a proper medication to help with their disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I implied no such thing, and in fact I SPECIFICALLY stated that I know that some kids DO have ADHD, I merely stated that is over diagnosed.
Click to expand...


Oh, ok. When I read the first section in your post regarding "differentiating between actual medical issues," I read it as you implying that it wasn't an actual medical issue. If that is not the case, and that you do acknowledge that ADHD is real, then I apologize for misunderstanding your post. You and I are in agreement that ADHD exists and that there does exist over-diagnosis. The problem is that we both don't know what the exact numbers are.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wake said:


> A majority of those diagnoses may indeed be accurate. The disorder takes many forms; there are at least 10 variations. I acknowledge that some people are diagnosed when they don't have ADHD, but beyond that I don't know specifics. Those who do have the disorder are chemically imbalanced; those who truly don't have it... I'm not sure why they were diagnosed. One reason for the influx may be because research in ADHD has made huge gains with its existence being acknowledged.


And yet, somehow we managed without it before. I think today's problems have more to do with lack of social skills and an electronically induced short attention span lifestyle. If you spend your day doing shootemup xbox games school will bore you to tears.


----------



## Wake

Iceweasel said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> A majority of those diagnoses may indeed be accurate. The disorder takes many forms; there are at least 10 variations. I acknowledge that some people are diagnosed when they don't have ADHD, but beyond that I don't know specifics. Those who do have the disorder are chemically imbalanced; those who truly don't have it... I'm not sure why they were diagnosed. One reason for the influx may be because research in ADHD has made huge gains with its existence being acknowledged.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, somehow we managed without it before. I think today's problems have more to do with lack of social skills and an electronically induced short attention span lifestyle. If you spend your day doing shootemup xbox games school will bore you to tears.
Click to expand...


By "managed without it," do you mean ADHD? 

...actually, lack of social skills, a short attention span, and hyper-focusing on certain things are all manifestations of ADHD. For some children with ADHD, social interactions are problematic. The combination of impulsivity, immaturity, and difficulty reading the social cues of others can lead to difficult and painful peer relationships. Learning to get along with others is a challenge, whether at school, in sports, or with friends.


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people....
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I couldn't make it past that.
Click to expand...


Frequently its hard to make it past things you wish were not true.  It was a spectator sport people brought their children to (speaking of child abuse).

*WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS!!*

Lynchings

young-boys.-August-3-1920-Center-Texas.jpg


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> A majority of those diagnoses may indeed be accurate. The disorder takes many forms; there are at least 10 variations. I acknowledge that some people are diagnosed when they don't have ADHD, but beyond that I don't know specifics. Those who do have the disorder are chemically imbalanced; those who truly don't have it... I'm not sure why they were diagnosed. One reason for the influx may be because research in ADHD has made huge gains with its existence being acknowledged.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, somehow we managed without it before. I think today's problems have more to do with lack of social skills and an electronically induced short attention span lifestyle. If you spend your day doing shootemup xbox games school will bore you to tears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "managed without it," do you mean ADHD?
> 
> ...actually, lack of social skills, a short attention span, and hyper-focusing on certain things are all manifestations of ADHD. For some children with ADHD, social interactions are problematic. The combination of impulsivity, immaturity, and difficulty reading the social cues of others can lead to difficult and painful peer relationships. Learning to get along with others is a challenge, whether at school, in sports, or with friends.
Click to expand...


You're also describing Asperger's there -- just throwing that in.


----------



## Wake

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, somehow we managed without it before. I think today's problems have more to do with lack of social skills and an electronically induced short attention span lifestyle. If you spend your day doing shootemup xbox games school will bore you to tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "managed without it," do you mean ADHD?
> 
> ...actually, lack of social skills, a short attention span, and hyper-focusing on certain things are all manifestations of ADHD. For some children with ADHD, social interactions are problematic. The combination of impulsivity, immaturity, and difficulty reading the social cues of others can lead to difficult and painful peer relationships. Learning to get along with others is a challenge, whether at school, in sports, or with friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're also describing Asperger's there -- just throwing that in.
Click to expand...


True. There are some similarities with ADHD.


----------



## Asclepias

Pogo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between these two views (yours and Wake's) I have to side with the latter.  As a Liberal I feel throwing legislating at the problem is always a slippery slope.  More effective is to change the *culture *-- so that the idea of violence and personal abuse is repulsive all by itself.  It's the same as my view on gun violence.
> 
> And not unrelated, given our obsession with violence common to both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people. In the wild west it was ok to have gun fights on main street. At another time it was ok to fight dogs.  At what point do you stop waiting for culture to change in order to stop heinous acts no matter how accepted they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear ya but I don't think anti-lynching laws were at all unreasonable.  Nor is criminal child abuse, that's fine.  I'd draw the line before making any and all spanking illegal though, even though I can't support the practice morally.  It's just too slippery a slope for legislation.  It would bring a judicial morass.
> 
> And I don't believe culture changes passively by waiting for it but by actively driving it by public opinion.  Laws tend to follow public opinion anyway, not lead it.  So what we're doing right here is a part of that active process.  Bottom line is that popular behavior doesn't change because it's forced to by law; it changes because it _desires_ the change.  So the objective is to persuade the desire.
Click to expand...


Those were just examples to show the urgency of some needed changes.  If laws had not been used to force that change when do you think lynchings or dog fighting would have stopped?

The one thing I have learned is that people do not change by public opinion fast enough or completely enough without a law to spur the change.  The other is if a leader can step forth and convince people to change.  Most people when confronted with a choice between changing their minds and proving the other person wrong will set about looking for the proof.


----------



## Pogo

Asclepias said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people. In the wild west it was ok to have gun fights on main street. At another time it was ok to fight dogs.  At what point do you stop waiting for culture to change in order to stop heinous acts no matter how accepted they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya but I don't think anti-lynching laws were at all unreasonable.  Nor is criminal child abuse, that's fine.  I'd draw the line before making any and all spanking illegal though, even though I can't support the practice morally.  It's just too slippery a slope for legislation.  It would bring a judicial morass.
> 
> And I don't believe culture changes passively by waiting for it but by actively driving it by public opinion.  Laws tend to follow public opinion anyway, not lead it.  So what we're doing right here is a part of that active process.  Bottom line is that popular behavior doesn't change because it's forced to by law; it changes because it _desires_ the change.  So the objective is to persuade the desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were just examples to show the urgency of some needed changes.  If laws had not been used to force that change when do you think lynchings or dog fighting would have stopped?
> 
> The one thing I have learned is that people do not change by public opinion fast enough or completely enough without a law to spur the change.  The other is if a leader can step forth and convince people to change.  Most people when confronted with a choice between changing their minds and proving the other person wrong will set about looking for the proof.
Click to expand...


We'll have to respectfully disagree on this point then.  I just don't believe people are positively motivated by fear, which in this case includes fear of criminal prosecution.  It's actually the same reasoning as being against spanking, though I'm not trying to equate legislation with spanking or whipping, but in either case it's motivation by negative.  I just don't believe that works.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual criticizing parental skills. Isn't that quaint?
> 
> 
> 
> I was married once to a beautiful, well-raised woman whose father was gay. Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought people were born gay? Imagine that.
Click to expand...


You were talking as though gay people couldn't parent properly. Or did you not understand your own post?


----------



## Pogo

This thought just occurred to me, and for once addressing the OP's question about whether it "works"...

If I think back I can remember my own spankings/beltings/whippings (pick your verb) with vivid and visceral clarity, and I remember those of my siblings better than those of my own.

But if I try to remember what any of them were _*for*_ -- any at all -- I draw a blank.  I honestly don't know.  Kinda raises a question about what the effect was.


----------



## Asclepias

Pogo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya but I don't think anti-lynching laws were at all unreasonable.  Nor is criminal child abuse, that's fine.  I'd draw the line before making any and all spanking illegal though, even though I can't support the practice morally.  It's just too slippery a slope for legislation.  It would bring a judicial morass.
> 
> And I don't believe culture changes passively by waiting for it but by actively driving it by public opinion.  Laws tend to follow public opinion anyway, not lead it.  So what we're doing right here is a part of that active process.  Bottom line is that popular behavior doesn't change because it's forced to by law; it changes because it _desires_ the change.  So the objective is to persuade the desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were just examples to show the urgency of some needed changes.  If laws had not been used to force that change when do you think lynchings or dog fighting would have stopped?
> 
> The one thing I have learned is that people do not change by public opinion fast enough or completely enough without a law to spur the change.  The other is if a leader can step forth and convince people to change.  Most people when confronted with a choice between changing their minds and proving the other person wrong will set about looking for the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to respectfully disagree on this point then.  I just don't believe people are positively motivated by fear, which in this case includes fear of criminal prosecution.  It's actually the same reasoning as being against spanking, though I'm not trying to equate legislation with spanking or whipping, but in either case it's motivation by negative.  I just don't believe that works.
Click to expand...



I see the validity of your logic.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wake said:


> By "managed without it," do you mean ADHD?


Yes, that was the topic.


> ...actually, lack of social skills, a short attention span, and hyper-focusing on certain things are all manifestations of ADHD. For some children with ADHD, social interactions are problematic. The combination of impulsivity, immaturity, and difficulty reading the social cues of others can lead to difficult and painful peer relationships. Learning to get along with others is a challenge, whether at school, in sports, or with friends.


Bullshit. If a kid's world revolves around his xbox, he will have social problems and a short attention span. And will probably have the chemical signs in his noggin as a result. If one stays angry all the time, for example, he too will have created chemicals. The brain reacts to stimulus, you can effect it with your behavior. It's modern man that blames everything on biology or someone/something else. That's why we as a society are becoming weak, immoral and unresponsible. Kids need discipline, not drugs.


----------



## Wake

Iceweasel said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "managed without it," do you mean ADHD?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that was the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...actually, lack of social skills, a short attention span, and hyper-focusing on certain things are all manifestations of ADHD. For some children with ADHD, social interactions are problematic. The combination of impulsivity, immaturity, and difficulty reading the social cues of others can lead to difficult and painful peer relationships. Learning to get along with others is a challenge, whether at school, in sports, or with friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. If a kid's world revolves around his xbox, he will have social problems and a short attention span. And will probably have the chemical signs in his noggin as a result. If one stays angry all the time, for example, he too will have created chemicals. The brain reacts to stimulus, you can effect it with your behavior. It's modern man that blames everything on biology or someone/something else. That's why we as a society are becoming weak, immoral and unresponsible. Kids need discipline, not drugs.
Click to expand...


I have to leave for work soon. Do you think ADHD exists? It would probably be better if I create a thread on ADHD so we can discuss it further there.


----------



## Pogo

Asclepias said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were just examples to show the urgency of some needed changes.  If laws had not been used to force that change when do you think lynchings or dog fighting would have stopped?
> 
> The one thing I have learned is that people do not change by public opinion fast enough or completely enough without a law to spur the change.  The other is if a leader can step forth and convince people to change.  Most people when confronted with a choice between changing their minds and proving the other person wrong will set about looking for the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to respectfully disagree on this point then.  I just don't believe people are positively motivated by fear, which in this case includes fear of criminal prosecution.  It's actually the same reasoning as being against spanking, though I'm not trying to equate legislation with spanking or whipping, but in either case it's motivation by negative.  I just don't believe that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see the validity of your logic.
Click to expand...




And I see the validity of laws on lynching and dogfighting.  Those are urgent matters.  Sometimes it takes both avenues, popular mores _and _legislation - when it's practical or as in these cases, urgent.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Iceweasel said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual criticizing parental skills. Isn't that quaint?
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=46539]Iceweasel[/MENTION], do you mean me?

If so, I'm not gay.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Chaussette said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was married once to a beautiful, well-raised woman whose father was gay. Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> I thought people were born gay? Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were talking as though gay people couldn't parent properly. Or did you not understand your own post?
Click to expand...


Apparently, [MENTION=46539]Iceweasel[/MENTION] is basing his opinion on his own lie that I'm gay.

WTF?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Asclepias said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people....
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I couldn't make it past that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frequently its hard to make it past things you wish were not true.  It was a spectator sport people brought their children to (speaking of child abuse).
> 
> *WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS!!*
> 
> Lynchings
> 
> young-boys.-August-3-1920-Center-Texas.jpg
Click to expand...


As horrible as the images of the probably-innocent lynched blacks are, the faces of the happy audience is just sickening.

Also sickening is that someone would post and "LOL" about lynching.

We're not nearly as evolved as we would like to believe.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Pogo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that *you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one*.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  None of us have ever _been _children.  We have no idea because we're "completely and totally ignorant" of what that could be like.
Click to expand...


Especially since most pregnancies are accidental. 

Those who think long and hard, those who examine their own inner strengths and weakness are very likely better qualified than those who screech, "You're WHAT? How did THAT happen?" and then grit their teeth for that little bundle of joy they don't even want.

Fact is, being fertile does not automatically confer some great wisdom and patience. Popping out a baby does not mean one is qualified to parent.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> This thought just occurred to me, and for once addressing the OP's question about whether it "works"...
> 
> If I think back I can remember my own spankings/beltings/whippings (pick your verb) with vivid and visceral clarity, and I remember those of my siblings better than those of my own.
> 
> But if I try to remember what any of them were _*for*_ -- any at all -- I draw a blank.  I honestly don't know.  Kinda raises a question about what the effect was.



I obviously can't speak to your experience.

I would say, however, that the age at which spanking is likely to be appropriate and effective is early enough that it would seem unusual to me for a person to remember either an individual spanking or the reason behind it.  I would be equally as surprised for someone to remember individual time outs or the reasons behind those.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Pogo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to respectfully disagree on this point then.  I just don't believe people are positively motivated by fear, which in this case includes fear of criminal prosecution.  It's actually the same reasoning as being against spanking, though I'm not trying to equate legislation with spanking or whipping, but in either case it's motivation by negative.  I just don't believe that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the validity of your logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the validity of laws on lynching and dogfighting.  Those are urgent matters.  Sometimes it takes both avenues, popular mores _and _legislation - when it's practical or as in these cases, urgent.
Click to expand...


Those are laws we need.

Laws that protect the weak and defenseless from those who believe they have the right to abuse and/or kill them.


----------



## Sunshine

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Father&#8217;s high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We spanked ours.  The pediatrician recommended a good swat on the butt when needed.  But to do it over again, I wouldn't.  I've seen how effective the 'time out' thing is with my daughter's 3 year old is.   When he grows up he will likely complain about how traumatized he was by having to take time out.  

Times change.
Generations change.
Methods change.

The Dr. Spock generation was hell on wheels.  They needed something and got nothing.

And statistics can say whatever you want them to say.  The person who has not been schooled in how to read them can be easily misled.


----------



## Katzndogz

It depends on the child.  My son got wooden spoons broken over his backside.   His granddaughter has never even gotten a harsh word.  She just never does anything wrong.  She wants to discuss issues first.  She's four.   She discusses everything with Grampa.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

deleted


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thought just occurred to me, and for once addressing the OP's question about whether it "works"...
> 
> If I think back I can remember my own spankings/beltings/whippings (pick your verb) with vivid and visceral clarity, and I remember those of my siblings better than those of my own.
> 
> But if I try to remember what any of them were _*for*_ -- any at all -- I draw a blank.  I honestly don't know.  Kinda raises a question about what the effect was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I obviously can't speak to your experience.
> 
> I would say, however, that the age at which spanking is likely to be appropriate and effective is early enough that it would seem unusual to me for a person to remember either an individual spanking or the reason behind it.  I would be equally as surprised for someone to remember individual time outs or the reasons behind those.
Click to expand...


Well then I guess I don't follow the logic.  I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so _they_ must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.

(Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank.  Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.

So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks".  Nothing more than that.  And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?".  Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thought just occurred to me, and for once addressing the OP's question about whether it "works"...
> 
> If I think back I can remember my own spankings/beltings/whippings (pick your verb) with vivid and visceral clarity, and I remember those of my siblings better than those of my own.
> 
> But if I try to remember what any of them were _*for*_ -- any at all -- I draw a blank.  I honestly don't know.  Kinda raises a question about what the effect was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I obviously can't speak to your experience.
> 
> I would say, however, that the age at which spanking is likely to be appropriate and effective is early enough that it would seem unusual to me for a person to remember either an individual spanking or the reason behind it.  I would be equally as surprised for someone to remember individual time outs or the reasons behind those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then I guess I don't follow the logic.  I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so _they_ must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.
> 
> (Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank.  Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.
> 
> So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks".  Nothing more than that.  And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?".  Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.
Click to expand...


There are a few responses to this.

First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.

Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.

I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.

I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.

As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.

However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.

So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.

Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I obviously can't speak to your experience.
> 
> I would say, however, that the age at which spanking is likely to be appropriate and effective is early enough that it would seem unusual to me for a person to remember either an individual spanking or the reason behind it.  I would be equally as surprised for someone to remember individual time outs or the reasons behind those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I guess I don't follow the logic.  I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so _they_ must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.
> 
> (Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank.  Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.
> 
> So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks".  Nothing more than that.  And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?".  Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.

While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.

I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I guess I don't follow the logic.  I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so _they_ must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.
> 
> (Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank.  Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.
> 
> So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks".  Nothing more than that.  And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?".  Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives.  And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.

I can accept the argument that people are *less* motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives.  And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.
> 
> I can accept the argument that people are *less* motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.
Click to expand...


We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking.  Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation".  It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term.  It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return.  "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action _because one wants to_ take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values.  That's the difference I'm distinguishing.

There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it.  My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket.  Should I decide some day that I _want to_ stop at that sign, I will.  But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.

Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree.  That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws.  And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I guess I don't follow the logic.  I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so _they_ must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.
> 
> (Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank.  Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.
> 
> So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks".  Nothing more than that.  And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?".  Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
Click to expand...


I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo.  I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child.  He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy.  He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father.  I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children.  If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened.  Not acting in the heat of the moment.  I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow.  They are hungry for attention.  I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it!  ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often,  don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time...  give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.   

* I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child.   If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them?  Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse.  It shouldn't happen.


----------



## Pogo

Jeremiah said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo.  I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child.  He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy.  He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father.  I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children.  If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened.  Not acting in the heat of the moment.  I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow.  They are hungry for attention.  I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it!  ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often,  don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time...  give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.
> 
> * I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child.   If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them?  Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse.  It shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...



Special kudos for this one.  Words to parent by.


----------



## Montrovant

Jeremiah said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo.  I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child.  He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy.  He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father.  I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children.  If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened.  Not acting in the heat of the moment.  I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow.  They are hungry for attention.  I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it!  ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often,  don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time...  give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.
> 
> * I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child.   If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them?  Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse.  It shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...


What if you would yell at a neighbor or co worker?


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives.  And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.
> 
> I can accept the argument that people are *less* motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking.  Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation".  It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term.  It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return.  "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action _because one wants to_ take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values.  That's the difference I'm distinguishing.
> 
> There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it.  My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket.  Should I decide some day that I _want to_ stop at that sign, I will.  But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.
> 
> Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree.  That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws.  And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.
Click to expand...


Well, depending on the age and individual child, they may not be able to really understand some of the things they need to know.  You can tell them not to run into the road, you can tell them that cars can seriously hurt or even kill them, but they may not truly understand that.  Small children do not, in general, process information the same way as an adult.  They usually don't really understand death, or even serious injury; they also don't have the same kind of ingrained self-preservation.  So in instances where one is attempting to protect the child from danger, it may be better for them to deal with a little shock and pain from a spank to drive the lesson home until they can understand the reasoning.

That, I think, is the biggest issue.  Children do not think like adults.  Treating them as you would an adult is going to be ineffective at best.  That may not mean spanking, but it does mean that logic and reason are not necessarily going to work, either.  So if you use time outs or taking away privileges or whatever non-physical discipline you wish, you still will have a hard time teaching some things to an average 5 year old.

I don't think we're actually that far apart on the issue.


----------



## ScienceRocks

It installs discipline in them. Something that is lacking these days.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I also think that your belief pretty much invalidates the idea of any laws, as they are pretty much motivation by negatives.  And just as a child might learn not to put their hand into a fire by being burned, they might also learn not to do it with a swat to the hand, at least until they are old enough to understand why putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea.
> 
> I can accept the argument that people are *less* motivated by negatives, but not that they cannot be motivated by them at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking.  Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation".  It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term.  It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return.  "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action _because one wants to_ take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values.  That's the difference I'm distinguishing.
> 
> There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it.  My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket.  Should I decide some day that I _want to_ stop at that sign, I will.  But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.
> 
> Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree.  That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws.  And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, depending on the age and individual child, they may not be able to really understand some of the things they need to know.  You can tell them not to run into the road, you can tell them that cars can seriously hurt or even kill them, but they may not truly understand that.  Small children do not, in general, process information the same way as an adult.  They usually don't really understand death, or even serious injury; they also don't have the same kind of ingrained self-preservation.  So in instances where one is attempting to protect the child from danger, it may be better for them to deal with a little shock and pain from a spank to drive the lesson home until they can understand the reasoning.
> 
> That, I think, is the biggest issue.  Children do not think like adults.  Treating them as you would an adult is going to be ineffective at best.  That may not mean spanking, but it does mean that logic and reason are not necessarily going to work, either.  So if you use time outs or taking away privileges or whatever non-physical discipline you wish, you still will have a hard time teaching some things to an average 5 year old.
> 
> I don't think we're actually that far apart on the issue.
Click to expand...


Hm.  We may have just drifted farther apart, because I'm just not buying this "children do not think like adults" line.  Communication on the level we're talking is a very very basic visceral level, and it's as common to adults and children as it is to animals.  If one would not beat one's dog or cat, then one shouldn't treat a child any differently; OTOH if one does beat one's dog, that dog will take on the same reactions a human will.  Regardless of age.

Here's what I mean: in my example *nothing* in my father's reaction tells me anything at all about cars in the street.  All it tells me is the old man's got a hair up his ass and he's a lot bigger than me and I'm in danger in the _present _(not the past in the street).  On the other hand my mother's calm rational explanation takes that pressure off and lets me see something going on besides a giant ogre bellowing at me.  When you're in danger, self-preservation IS the priority -- not whatever circumstances just happened in the street.  And children _absolutely_ feel that.  And self-preservation shuts everything else down.

A little insignificant incident but a good example: a friend was angry with her dog for whatever reason and was angrily demanding "Jasmine, come HERE! NOW!"  Of course Jasmine only cowered and pulled further into her corner.  She could sense the anger.  I got my friend to stand aside, bent down and in a cheerful musical voice said "Jasmine - c'mon!".  She got up immediately and came to me.  Why?  _Because the danger was over_. There was no anger in my voice.

This is a very very basic emotional dynamic.  Doesn't matter if you're an adult, a child, or a dog.  Works the same.  Fear is just not a useful motivation tool.  The priority of the recipient of fear is to alleviate the danger, and the danger in that moment is the switch.  It's certainly not the street traffic.

Somebody a while back tried to draw a comparison between the effectiveness of spankng and that of torture.  It's the same dynamic at work -- the torturee will tell the interrogator anything he wants to hear, because his priority is to stop the torture.  It's the same thing.  Fear just doesn't work.


----------



## The Professor

I personally believe that when children are eight years old, their parents should take them into the deep woods and leave them there with a Swiss Army knife and a peanut butter sandwich.  I did that to all my kids except for my son John.  I really loved that little guy so I put a dollop of jelly on his peanut butter sandwich. 

Joking, of course.

I have always taken parenting seriously.    I agree with Jacquelyn Kennedy who said, If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do well matters much.  Unfortunately, in today's chaotic world  far too many parents seek the  most expedient methods of dealing with their children with little regard for the long term effects of such treatment.     We  know that children deserve more than to be ruled by fear yet we still use fear as a tool.  I think Harry Emerson Fosdick was right on point when he said:

The first impressions of childhood are almost ineradicable, and the first impression which many a home makes upon a child is that duty is an unpleasant necessity. He feels driven to it by fear of ill consequence if he disobey. Desirable results in quiet and good order can be at once obtained by a swift and vehement appeal to such fear. "If you do not stop that," we burst out to a little child, "I will -- ." And then follows the first threat that leaps into the irate parents mind. The consequence is immediate: A shivering life draws in upon itself, constrained, repressed. No wonder that duty has uncomfortable associations in multitudes of minds! It is a commentary on parents everywhere that, over two thousand years after Alexander the Great conquered India, Indian mothers are still telling their children that Iskander will get them if they do not obey.

Upon the other hand, to discover the petulant childs real need and to give a true satisfaction where a false one was being sought, to unfold the disobedient child into positive goodwill that drives illwill out, to get joyful expression instead of sullen repression --anyone can tell that this is the superior method by noting the faculties in himself which this requires. All that it takes to appeal to fear is indignation and vehemence, and they are cheap. But so to understand the child as to unfold his life into positive and radiant character takes the finest qualities that we posses --insight, sympathy, intelligence, tact and patience.   *Some parents bring up their children on thunder and lightning, but thunder and lightning never yet made anything grow. Rain and dew and sunshine cause growth -- quiet, penetrating forces that develop life. And while thunder and lightning are occasionally useful to clear the air, it is amazing with how little of them a family can get along if only there is enough of the vitality that causes growth* (Twelve Tests of Character, Chapter 5, Section II, emphasis my own).


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We venture onto a tenuous analogy if we start equating laws with corporal punishment but... we basically did this a few hours ago talking about passing laws against any kind of spanking.  Refraining from doing something because it's illegal (or other negative) isn't "motivation".  It's negative reinforcement for lack of a better term.  It's calculating a risk and deciding the risk isn't worth the return.  "Motivation" would be taking some action or refraining from some action _because one wants to_ take or refrain from that action -- because it's part of one's values.  That's the difference I'm distinguishing.
> 
> There's a stop sign I blow through around here, just because it's inefficient to stop at it.  My motivation for efficiency trumps the negative reinforcement that if I'm caught I'll get a ticket.  Should I decide some day that I _want to_ stop at that sign, I will.  But the negative reinforcement of the law doesn't influence me.
> 
> Motivation (as I've described it here) is a far stronger incentive than a negative reinforcement, I think you agree.  That's why I focus on popular mores rather than laws.  And to slide back to our topic, that's why I think my mother calmly explaining the car approaching in the street is far more effective than my father just getting pissed off about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, depending on the age and individual child, they may not be able to really understand some of the things they need to know.  You can tell them not to run into the road, you can tell them that cars can seriously hurt or even kill them, but they may not truly understand that.  Small children do not, in general, process information the same way as an adult.  They usually don't really understand death, or even serious injury; they also don't have the same kind of ingrained self-preservation.  So in instances where one is attempting to protect the child from danger, it may be better for them to deal with a little shock and pain from a spank to drive the lesson home until they can understand the reasoning.
> 
> That, I think, is the biggest issue.  Children do not think like adults.  Treating them as you would an adult is going to be ineffective at best.  That may not mean spanking, but it does mean that logic and reason are not necessarily going to work, either.  So if you use time outs or taking away privileges or whatever non-physical discipline you wish, you still will have a hard time teaching some things to an average 5 year old.
> 
> I don't think we're actually that far apart on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hm.  We may have just drifted farther apart, because I'm just not buying this "children do not think like adults" line.  Communication on the level we're talking is a very very basic visceral level, and it's as common to adults and children as it is to animals.  If one would not beat one's dog or cat, then one shouldn't treat a child any differently; OTOH if one does beat one's dog, that dog will take on the same reactions a human will.  Regardless of age.
> 
> Here's what I mean: in my example *nothing* in my father's reaction tells me anything at all about cars in the street.  All it tells me is the old man's got a hair up his ass and he's a lot bigger than me and I'm in danger in the _present _(not the past in the street).  On the other hand my mother's calm rational explanation takes that pressure off and lets me see something going on besides a giant ogre bellowing at me.  When you're in danger, self-preservation IS the priority -- not whatever circumstances just happened in the street.  And children _absolutely_ feel that.  And self-preservation shuts everything else down.
> 
> A little insignificant incident but a good example: a friend was angry with her dog for whatever reason and was angrily demanding "Jasmine, come HERE! NOW!"  Of course Jasmine only cowered and pulled further into her corner.  She could sense the anger.  I got my friend to stand aside, bent down and in a cheerful musical voice said "Jasmine - c'mon!".  She got up immediately and came to me.  Why?  _Because the danger was over_. There was no anger in my voice.
> 
> This is a very very basic emotional dynamic.  Doesn't matter if you're an adult, a child, or a dog.  Works the same.  Fear is just not a useful motivation tool.  The priority of the recipient of fear is to alleviate the danger, and the danger in that moment is the switch.  It's certainly not the street traffic.
> 
> Somebody a while back tried to draw a comparison between the effectiveness of spankng and that of torture.  It's the same dynamic at work -- the torturee will tell the interrogator anything he wants to hear, because his priority is to stop the torture.  It's the same thing.  Fear just doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Ah, but here's the thing : as a parent you WANT a small child to be afraid of going into the road!  Not cowering terror, but enough fear to assure they don't do it.  Why?  Because they do not understand danger the way an adult will.  They just don't get the importance of avoiding the cars on their own.  Now, if you ask why they shouldn't go into the road, they can tell you because of the cars.....but that knowledge isn't the same for them as for an adult, as evidenced by the fact they often will run out into the road.  

Yes, adults and children can feel the same emotions, but in adults they are most often filtered through our thoughts and experiences.  Children, I think, experience the world in a much less filtered manner.  So if it is easier to get a small child to fear a spanking if they run into the road, because that is a fear they can understand, instead of fearing the consequences of the car, which they don't quite grasp, I think the spanking is fine.

Again, I can't use your experiences but I think they fall well outside what I am talking about.  However, the fact that you are afraid of your father rather than the car in the road may be secondary to the fact that you stay out of the road.  And while you may at 5 have been able to understand and respect the danger the cars represent, I don't think the average 5 year old does.  Certainly the 4 year old I nanny and her 3 year old friend from next door still have a hard time remembering not to just wander into the street.  And before you ask, no, I've never spanked the little one for running into the street.  However, not only is she a pretty well-behaved child, I'm fairly overprotective and don't give her much opportunity to do it.  With a more obstinate child or if she played on her own more, I might do things a bit differently.  I'd rather she be a bit confused as to why she was spanked than have her end up hit by a car; I'd rather she be afraid of punishment until I know she can understand the importance of avoiding cars on her own.

Oh, and as to torture.  I think torture is an ineffective means of information gathering not because it doesn't work, but because it is inconsistent in how often and how much it will work.  I think you can get valid information from torture, but you can just as easily get false information as the victim tries to tell you what you want to know.  It's not that torture cannot work, rather it is inefficient (outside of the obvious immorality of it).


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

That is brilliant, Professor!  I love that lesson.  There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king.  I believe it was the king of England.  The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions.  He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting.  He stopped throwing tantrums.  Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents.  He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues.  The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne.  Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died.  That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Montrovant said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo.  I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child.  He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy.  He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father.  I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children.  If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened.  Not acting in the heat of the moment.  I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow.  They are hungry for attention.  I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it!  ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often,  don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time...  give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.
> 
> * I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child.   If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them?  Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse.  It shouldn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you would yell at a neighbor or co worker?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't.  If you would then an anger management course might help.


----------



## Asclepias

Montrovant said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo.  I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child.  He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy.  He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father.  I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children.  If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened.  Not acting in the heat of the moment.  I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow.  They are hungry for attention.  I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it!  ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often,  don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time...  give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.
> 
> * I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child.   If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them?  Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse.  It shouldn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you would yell at a neighbor or co worker?
Click to expand...


Then you would need to work on that. Your behavior is something you can control with practice and understanding where your behavior comes from.  I know this because I was very angry as a teenager and young adult.  I learned that it only hurt me walking around angry all the time. Funny thing is the birth of my first child was the motivator for the change.


----------



## Asclepias

Jeremiah said:


> That is brilliant, Professor!  I love that lesson.  There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king.  I believe it was the king of England.  The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions.  He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting.  He stopped throwing tantrums.  Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents.  He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues.  The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne.  Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died.  That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!



I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.


----------



## Duped

You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.

In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it. 

If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!


----------



## Chaussette

Duped said:


> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!



Hitting children is for cowards.


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting children is for cowards.
Click to expand...

How many years did you serve in the military?


----------



## Jarlaxle

GISMYS said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father.  She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like.  When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you."  He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.
> 
> His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.)  He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage.  His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.
> 
> His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to school with a kid like that too, who also hung himself.  Same story.  He was a top student and smart as a whip.  Apparently not smart enough.
> 
> Also came to the same conclusion as Luddly and Jaraxle about not procreating, for similar reasons.  I know exactly what you guys mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!!! Satan is on earth to kill and destroy,parents need to teach and warn their children,those that do not do their duty pay a ver very high price!!!
Click to expand...


Are you in the right thread?  Are you in the right FORUM?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Luddly Neddite said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
Click to expand...


You give too much credit.  *It is MALICE.*


----------



## Jarlaxle

Wake said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think any form of physical punishment for children should be outlawed. I've seen both extremes and its not a pretty sight. I know one guy in prison for killing his father due to the physical and mental abuse he suffered as a child.  I know a woman who is a train wreck due to her parents trying to befriend her and withhold all punishment.  IMHO raising your child can be done without ever laying a finger on them. It is more difficult especially if your child is willful but the results are outstanding.  I relate raising children to training dogs.  The same principles apply. You start young. You give them lots of opportunities to succeed. You give them as many yes's as possible. You limit the no's to whats absolutely necessary. You over celebrate their victories and use their losses as learning opportunities.  Your disapproval is more than enough to punish a child if you have done everything else at least halfway right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias, there are two things I want you to know before we discuss this further. 1), I respect you. 2), you're OK in my book. That said, we disagree a bit on some stuff.
> 
> Physical punishment should be legal, so long as it doesn't cross any boundaries. Using a paddle or a hand on the rump is very different then slapping or punching the face, or beating, kicking punching, etc. Evolution made it so that the butt has fat on it, to make sitting more comfortable, while also making disciplining your children easier for both of you.
Click to expand...


I could cripple a child for life by paddling his/her butt.



> Sometimes young kids are little demons. I was one of them. Reasoning didn't work. You couldn't reason with me, therefore, you _couldn't_ stop me. Little ones with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder can be so hyper and inattentive that only a few things will drive the message into the brain, and ensure it's remembered. And along the lines of being a hyper, evil, and intelligent brat, I soon learned that buying my love and obedience could be abused by me. Hitler did it, too. Sending me to my room did nothing, because video games. Having me stand in the corner did nothing but give me time to collect and organize my evil plans. Every little chink in my parents' armor was learned and abused, making it easy to come out ahead in bargaining.
> 
> Then the day came when it all stopped. I learned fear. After breaking something else Mom and Dad brought me into the living room, and I was notified that my butt was going to be spanked. This was new to me, because everything had been going so well. The very thought of this impending attack on my behind made me think that maybe, just maybe, my parents wouldn't lay down and take it any more. So with the bending of my body over Dad's knee, and the torture of the eternal two minutes, fear was not only learned... but remembered. Needless to say, so did respect. And with that my dreams of global domination came to an end.
> 
> If you my friend can get your children to obey you without having to spank their behinds, you are fortunate. That is rare, and was certainly not the case for my parents. Interestingly enough, we trained our puppy by scruffing her as punishment for biting people, running away, etc. She was a very loving, obedient, loyal sweetheart, and never got in trouble with the pound.
> 
> What you've mentioned about celebrating their victories and using their losses as learning opportunities is good, and I could see using that side-by-side with spanking out really bad behavior (maybe a caveat here would be to not over-celebrate, though?). If you were my parent, and I was very young, you would have to control me with spanking (give me very good reason to fear, respect, and obey you), or I'd likely burn your house down because no one's given me reason to not dare explore with matches.
> 
> Sometimes spanking is necessary and justified, and if you have reason to do so as a parent, you also have to keep it in moderation.



No.  It is NEVER necessary, it is NEVER justified, and it is NEVER the right thing to do.  Anyone doing it needs to be stopped by any means necessary up to and including lethal force.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Katzndogz said:


> It depends on the child.  My son got wooden spoons broken over his backside.   His granddaughter has never even gotten a harsh word.  She just never does anything wrong.  She wants to discuss issues first.  She's four.   She discusses everything with Grampa.



Yeah, yeah, yeah...you being a psycho is not news.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Duped said:


> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!



How psychotic.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Asclepias said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is brilliant, Professor!  I love that lesson.  There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king.  I believe it was the king of England.  The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions.  He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting.  He stopped throwing tantrums.  Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents.  He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues.  The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne.  Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died.  That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.
Click to expand...


I wish my father had ignored me.  Honestly...not only would I not have minded, I'd have probably enjoyed it.


----------



## Ringel05

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I guess I don't follow the logic.  I've read several posters here comment something to the effect that "I got spanked and I deserve it", so _they_ must remember, if they can now conclude they deserved it.
> 
> (Of course what that makes me immediately think is, if you deserved it and you know you deserved it, then why would you commit the infraction in the first place, but I wouldn't expect an answer on that...)
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at is that while I remember the punishments and the angst that came with them, that memory is clear and easy to recall, but trying to remember what the infraction was that brought any of them about draws a blank.  Except I do remember that the parent was enraged -- that's it.
> 
> So for me at least, the take-home message was "pain sucks".  Nothing more than that.  And that's meant as an answer to the OP question, "does it work?".  Apparently it doesn't, or I would have remembered what the hell at least some of the "lessons" were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
Click to expand...


If you fathers reaction is the same reaction I would have had it's an emotional sudden fear reaction resulting in anger at the sudden "start" of fear.  It's more common than you think and being an involuntary adrenalin reaction in some people........ 
Jeremy's way worked for him and his child, others who moderately to lightly spanked worked for them and their children.  
The cookie cutter approach never works for everyone especially since each and every one of us deal with stimuli differently.  That doesn't mean the truly abusive need to be given a pass which begs the real question, where is that line drawn.  Those who are very abusive may think their way is best, those who have truly been abused cannot comprehend any form of physical punishment as not abusive as they have no real basis of comparison.  Also those who have had success raising their children without any physical or (seeming or real) anger related punishment cannot see past their own success and almost all judge based on these individual experiences.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Montrovant said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to agree with you on that one, Pogo.  I didn't spank my child as a toddler and he was a most loving child.  He was not spoiled in the least and others told me he was a very sweet boy.  He grew up to be a thoughtful man and a good father.  I don't like the word "punish" and I don't like the idea of "refined violence" as Jake put it - I'm not accusing people who spank their children of child abuse but I am questioning their patience to raise children.  If a parent is extremely angry they should wait until a latter time to discuss what happened.  Not acting in the heat of the moment.  I believe if parents spent quality time with their children they wouldn't be acting out half the time anyhow.  They are hungry for attention.  I'd say do the real job of parenting and teach through example, fun videos - veggie tales has many great videos on good manners and behavior - do's and don'ts -watch it with them and talk about it!  ... go to the parks and let them get some exercise, do what they would like to do more often,  don't wear them out at shopping malls, when they should have a nap or their lunch time...  give them the freedom to have a bad mood day, to feel bored and the room to work it out without interfering.
> 
> * I do not believe it is EVER alright for a parent to raise their voice to their child.   If you wouldn't yell at your neighbor or co worker why in the world would you ever terrify your own child by yelling at them?  Screaming at a child in anger is verbal abuse.  It shouldn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you would yell at a neighbor or co worker?
Click to expand...


Abusive bullies never yell at or hit anyone who can defend themselves.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Duped said:


> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!



Another poster above bragged about abusing their son by breaking wooden spoons over his backside. One would have to despise their children to want to cause them pain. 




> How many years did you serve in the military?



This thread is not about the military. Its about spanking children. 

Children should not treated like their family is a boot camp. 

WHAT is wrong with people that they would do these horrible things to CHILDREN???


----------



## Iceweasel

Luddly Neddite said:


> This thread is not about the military. Its about spanking children.
> 
> Children should not treated like their family is a boot camp.
> 
> WHAT is wrong with people that they would do these horrible things to CHILDREN???


What is wrong is the people that don't. We have the results in front of our eyes, all you need to do is take the blinders off and look. I see graffitti all over the place now while 10 years ago there was none. To you it's a coincidence, to me it's obvious. Your method clearly has poor results.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Iceweasel said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about the military. Its about spanking children.
> 
> Children should not treated like their family is a boot camp.
> 
> WHAT is wrong with people that they would do these horrible things to CHILDREN???
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong is the people that don't. We have the results in front of our eyes, all you need to do is take the blinders off and look. I see graffitti all over the place now while 10 years ago there was none. To you it's a coincidence, to me it's obvious. Your method clearly has poor results.
Click to expand...


1. How do you know taggers were or were not hit as children?
2. How do you know what I think about taggers?
3. How do you know what "my method" is?

You've taken zero information and drawn a lot of conclusions from ignorance. Just as you did with your asssssumption that I'm gay.

You're welcome to your opinions but please don't confuse them with facts.


----------



## Iceweasel

Luddly Neddite said:


> 1. How do you know taggers were or were not hit as children?
> 2. How do you know what I think about taggers?
> 3. How do you know what "my method" is?
> 
> You've taken zero information and drawn a lot of conclusions from ignorance. Just as you did with your asssssumption that I'm gay.
> 
> You're welcome to your opinions but please don't confuse them with facts.


Taggers? Oh, you mean vandals. I go though life fully awake. I see the kids and I hear more and more people like you talk about how evil spanking is and I can add 2+2. It's called thinking.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting children is for cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many years did you serve in the military?
Click to expand...


Wtf does that have to do with hitting children? Raising children isn't fucking boot camp.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

iceweasel said:


> luddly neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How do you know taggers were or were not hit as children?
> 2. How do you know what i think about taggers?
> 3. How do you know what "my method" is?
> 
> You've taken zero information and drawn a lot of conclusions from ignorance. Just as you did with your asssssumption that i'm gay.
> 
> You're welcome to your opinions but please don't confuse them with facts.
> 
> 
> 
> taggers? Oh, you mean vandals. I go though life fully awake. I see the kids and i hear more and more people like you talk about how evil spanking is and i can add 2+2. It's called thinking.
Click to expand...


iow, 



> you've taken zero information and drawn a lot of conclusions from ignorance. Just as you did with your asssssumption that i'm gay.


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting children is for cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> How many years did you serve in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wtf does that have to do with hitting children? Raising children isn't fucking boot camp.
Click to expand...

It was a followup question to the post you responded to in your typical fashion. He brought up the point that tough discipline made weak men strong and you just puked up your standard hitting children is for cowards response. The fact that spanking has and does work and many people, including military, employ it. You calling them cowards is laughable. My guess is that you never served and have no idea what he was talking about.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many years did you serve in the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf does that have to do with hitting children? Raising children isn't fucking boot camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a followup question to the post you responded to in your typical fashion. He brought up the point that tough discipline made weak men strong and you just puked up your standard hitting children is for cowards response. The fact that spanking has and does work and many people, including military, employ it. You calling them cowards is laughable. My guess is that you never served and have no idea what he was talking about.
Click to expand...


They spank you in the army?  Ya, that's not too gay. 

Hitting children IS cowardly, and shows a certain lack of intelligence, like, you can only see violence as the solution.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Asclepias said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is brilliant, Professor!  I love that lesson.  There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king.  I believe it was the king of England.  The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions.  He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting.  He stopped throwing tantrums.  Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents.  He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues.  The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne.  Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died.  That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.
Click to expand...


Someone here asked me to share this story as it reinforces the thought that there are other methods besides spanking to bring correction. 

When my son was very small I told him if he would be honest and tell me what he's done wrong (instead of my having to find out ) the consequences would be small - something he would feel was more than fair and I would keep my word on the matter.  

So one day he came into my room and gave me a dollar bill his grandmother had given him and said I don't deserve this. ( he had torn it up before handing it to me just to emphasize his misery! ) I asked him why and he said the neighbors son had put him on his handlebars and rode him to 7/11 ( which he wasn't allowed to do ) he went inside with him and the kid put candy in his pocket and had him walk out with it telling him he had stole the candy really - not my son.  The boy was older and my son went along.  Yes it was a bad decision but how wonderful that he came and told me how badly he felt and cried while he was telling me about it!  Why was he crying?  Not because he thought he was getting a spanking.  Because he genuinely felt guilt for something he had done.  I told him I had been tricked before and regretted not speaking up.  

We talked it over and I told him I was willing to pay for the candy that was taken and accompany him to the store ( to apologise to the manager )  if he was willing to go with me to the neighbors house and talk to the boys mother about what happened.  He agreed.  We went to their door and the mother and boy were standing there.   Her son was a few years older and didn't say a word.  The mother said  to her son in front of us if I find out you did this I'll kill you!  My son and I were horrified.  No wonder the boy wouldn't tell his mother the truth.  He was afraid of her!  

 Fear is a very negative emotion to raise children by.  It inhibits the ability to trust and be open with the very people they should be able to trust the most!  Their parents!


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> They spank you in the army?  Ya, that's not too gay.
> 
> Hitting children IS cowardly, and shows a certain lack of intelligence, like, you can only see violence as the solution.


Don't be too quick to criticize intellect. You missed the analogy, and it was a pretty good one. In boot camp you learn discipline, it's physical and the punishment is physical, in the form of pushups, running, screaming in the face, insults, standing still for long periods, etc. 

We had a few guys that couldn't cut it, cried like babies. One of them was 6'2 at least but a big wimp. Did we hate our drill instructors or consider it abusive? No. We like the guy and threw him a party afterwards because we knew that he had our best interests in mind. And I would suggest that ours was not a unique experience.

Same with spanking. Some kids need it, some don't. And most that got it, knew the difference between a spanking and a beating.


----------



## Asclepias

Duped said:


> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!



I grew up with gang bangers. The worst of them got beat and abused constantly for any and every infraction.  It made most of them mean and turned them into bullies.  Show me a hardcore gangbanger and you will find someone with abuse in their background.


----------



## percysunshine

Question asked, question answered;


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Most of the people I corresponded with in prison ministry were beaten severely as children.  Some went on to boot camp, all went on to prison.  The common denominator with all of them was their parents used violence as a teaching tool and it backfired.  More discipline is not what brought them around.  Love brought them around and love transformed them.  

You could go to any prison and ask them if its the punishment there that will keep them from returning.  They will tell you that isn't it.   It's finding their self worth and purpose and feeling loved that will keep them from returning.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Asclepias said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up with gang bangers. The worst of them got beat and abused constantly for any and every infraction.  It made most of them mean and turned them into bullies.  Show me a hardcore gangbanger and you will find someone with abuse in their background.
Click to expand...


I believe it.


----------



## R.D.

Continuing to read through this thread it seems to me that like in most subjects many here might be a tad (or more) exaggerating  their own personal perfection at parenting skills.

Many of those using the occasion swat or spank to prove abuse, cowardice or evil come across more like they are trying to convince the rest of us of personal superiority issue rather  than a parenting issue.


----------



## JimH52

BillyZane said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I were foster parents during the days when spanking was allowed.  I was president of my state association of FP when the ruling from the state came down outlawing spanking.  A lot of FP just gave it up.  We went through intensive training to teach FP different methods of discipline.
> 
> It seems to me that spanking had its place, but this is a new generation.  Many kids would rather be spanked than go through the process of consequence.  The fine line between spanking for discipline and parental abuse has taken the former off the board.
> 
> So the answer to your question is, Yes, it does work with some kids.  But No, it is no longer an option in today's society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> speak for yourself, I spank my child when necessary.
Click to expand...


I have no problem personally with that.  But I strongly advise you to try hard to avoid those spankings in public places.  There are folks out there that will not hesitate to call social services or other authorities if they see that happen.  Take it from someone who has seen it happen many times.  It is just the way it is.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Ringel05 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few responses to this.
> 
> First, different people consider spanking appropriate at different ages.
> 
> Next, I happen to have a bad memory, so I have a bias about people remembering a lot of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I also think that we often color our memories over time, so I find it hard to trust the efficacy of someone's memories of specific childhood incidents.
> 
> I would imagine that most people were either spanked later in life than I would consider effective, or simply remember having done bad things and getting spanked in a general sense.  I know I was spanked, but not how often, or for what particularly, nor do I remember any particular spanking.  I imagine I deserved it at least some of the time, as children tend to do some bad or dangerous things at times.
> 
> As I've said, I get the impression you had far more than spanking done to you.  I would guess that I would say you were beaten and abused, which is a far more traumatic kind of experience than simple spanking and more likely to imprint on your memory.
> 
> However, I don't think you are really grasping the idea behind spanking, or even most parental discipline.  It is not about one single incident of discipline remaining with a person for their entire life.  It is just a single part of teaching any particular lesson.  If someone is never spanked as a child, remembers being put in time outs, but not the particular reasons for those time outs, does that mean they were ineffective?  No.  It isn't about what specifics you remember as an adult, it's about learning general behaviors.  Don't touch a hot stove.  Don't play with electric sockets.  Don't run with scissors.  Don't talk back to your mother.  Whatever the bad behavior is, the spank is, hopefully, an emphasis to the verbal lesson rather than a lesson in itself.
> 
> So even if you have completely forgotten the reason for a spanking as an adult, if you remembered it as a child and stopped some bad behavior in part because of it, it was effective.
> 
> Again, I don't want to equate what you went through to the kind of spanking I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember (and this would be no older than five, I know that by where we were living) being chewed out big time by my father for running out into the street where apparently a car had to stop short.  I don't remember being struck over that, but I do remember the anger, which was common to both that incident and the belt.
> 
> While I understand the reason not to run out in the street without looking, I never understood, and still don't understand to this day, his reaction or how that was supposed to convey a lesson to a toddler.  All his action taught me was that he was a dick.  My mother explained it to me later in a calm, rational conversation, and *that* is when I learned the lesson -- or even comprehended what I had done.
> 
> I still come back to this: I don't believe people are motivated by negatives.  I really don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you fathers reaction is the same reaction I would have had it's an emotional sudden fear reaction resulting in anger at the sudden "start" of fear.  It's more common than you think and being an involuntary adrenalin reaction in some people........
> Jeremy's way worked for him and his child, others who moderately to lightly spanked worked for them and their children.
> The cookie cutter approach never works for everyone especially since each and every one of us deal with stimuli differently.  That doesn't mean the truly abusive need to be given a pass which begs the real question, where is that line drawn.  Those who are very abusive may think their way is best, those who have truly been abused cannot comprehend any form of physical punishment as not abusive as they have no real basis of comparison.  Also those who have had success raising their children without any physical or (seeming or real) anger related punishment cannot see past their own success and almost all judge based on these individual experiences.
Click to expand...


You've made some excellent points.  All children are different and what works for one may not for another.   I believe a parent should discipline their child.  But what is the definition of discipline?  I looked it up.. 1. the establishment of correct order and behavior with rules, training, etc.  2. a branch or subject of learning    

So setting boundaries, being consistent, those are tools too.  Instead of springing it on them and they have no idea of what they've done wrong.

I have an aversion to physical punishment and verbal abuse because I believe it is does more harm than good.  Ringo is right that people who have come out of violent homes are going to have a stronger aversion to physical punishment / screaming parents / than those who did not.  There are many reasons for the opinions people have about how to raise children.  Usually they want their child to have a better life experience than they did.   That is understandable.


----------



## Synergy

The use of physical violence as a reprimand teaches children that physical violence is a useful and necessary manner of serving "justice," which is subjectively applied by each individual.

Not only does spanking ignore the countless detrimental externalities that often result (for both that individual personally, and the surrounding environment he/she affects), it isn't even as effective as alternative strategies of positive reinforcement. 

Whether there are individuals that survived such forms of punishment and turned into great individuals tells us absolutely nothing scientifically. By that logic, all it would take to prove that cigarettes are harmless is to find a few centenarians that died of natural causes in spite of a lifelong smoking habit. I'm sure it has happened plenty, as we expect such outliers to occur in science and statistics.


----------



## Montrovant

Synergy said:


> The use of physical violence as a reprimand teaches children that physical violence is a useful and necessary manner of serving "justice," which is subjectively applied by each individual.
> 
> Not only does spanking ignore the countless detrimental externalities that often result (for both that individual personally, and the surrounding environment he/she affects), it isn't even as effective as alternative strategies of positive reinforcement.
> 
> Whether there are individuals that survived such forms of punishment and turned into great individuals tells us absolutely nothing scientifically. By that logic, all it would take to prove that cigarettes are harmless is to find a few centenarians that died of natural causes in spite of a lifelong smoking habit. I'm sure it has happened plenty, as we expect such outliers to occur in science and statistics.



Why do you assume that those who 'survived' spanking and became great individuals are so few and far between?  Why do you assume they are outliers rather than the norm?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Synergy said:


> The use of physical violence as a reprimand teaches children that physical violence is a useful and necessary manner of serving "justice," which is subjectively applied by each individual.
> 
> Not only does spanking ignore the countless detrimental externalities that often result (for both that individual personally, and the surrounding environment he/she affects), it isn't even as effective as alternative strategies of positive reinforcement.
> 
> Whether there are individuals that survived such forms of punishment and turned into great individuals tells us absolutely nothing scientifically. By that logic, all it would take to prove that cigarettes are harmless is to find a few centenarians that died of natural causes in spite of a lifelong smoking habit. I'm sure it has happened plenty, as we expect such outliers to occur in science and statistics.



I wonder what the stats are of people who hit children - Where they hit as children?

Do people who were not hit as children grow up to hit children?

Bottom line is that violence begets violence. Hitting children never gets a truly positive outcome. The child may behave differently but for the wrong reasons. 

Good post.


----------



## Synergy

Montrovant said:


> Synergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of physical violence as a reprimand teaches children that physical violence is a useful and necessary manner of serving "justice," which is subjectively applied by each individual.
> 
> Not only does spanking ignore the countless detrimental externalities that often result (for both that individual personally, and the surrounding environment he/she affects), it isn't even as effective as alternative strategies of positive reinforcement.
> 
> Whether there are individuals that survived such forms of punishment and turned into great individuals tells us absolutely nothing scientifically. By that logic, all it would take to prove that cigarettes are harmless is to find a few centenarians that died of natural causes in spite of a lifelong smoking habit. I'm sure it has happened plenty, as we expect such outliers to occur in science and statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that those who 'survived' spanking and became great individuals are so few and far between?  Why do you assume they are outliers rather than the norm?
Click to expand...


Hop on Google scholar and test your null hypothesis. Countless studies exist, most often with regard to externalities. Statistical significance doesn't depend on miniscule totals of outliers if the overall sample/population size is very large. So, "few and far between" could be anything from a handful of individuals to thousands or millions depending on the proportional ratio of said outliers to whatever sample/population size you are analyzing.


----------



## Wake

Which is odd, because being spanked as discipline taught me to not ever hit people except for truly self-defense situations.


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about the military. Its about spanking children.
> 
> Children should not treated like their family is a boot camp.
> 
> WHAT is wrong with people that they would do these horrible things to CHILDREN???
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong is the people that don't. We have the results in front of our eyes, all you need to do is take the blinders off and look. I see graffitti all over the place now while 10 years ago there was none. To you it's a coincidence, to me it's obvious. Your method clearly has poor results.
Click to expand...


You're actually going to try to draw a connection between corporal punishment and _*graffiti*_?

My, this thread has its logical mood swings.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

It goes one of two ways, Luddly.   They either become abusers themselves or they determine they will be do the very opposite from their own parents and not spank their children at all.  Finding alternative methods to go by.   Does that make them a better parent than R.D. or Jim who state they used an occasional spank or swat to discipline their children?  Not at all.  The reason some parents are better off using other tools is because they came from dysfunctional homes and have nothing to measure what is normal and what isn't.

  For parents who opted to spank their child I don't think they are evil people bent on torturing their child.  They are acting in good faith believing its teaching their child something and will protect them from some future harm.  Its obvious everyone here loves their children.  I hope my comments didn't offend anyone.  - Jeri


----------



## Pogo

Jeremiah said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is brilliant, Professor!  I love that lesson.  There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king.  I believe it was the king of England.  The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions.  He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting.  He stopped throwing tantrums.  Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents.  He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues.  The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne.  Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died.  That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone here asked me to share this story as it reinforces the thought that there are other methods besides spanking to bring correction.
> 
> When my son was very small I told him if he would be honest and tell me what he's done wrong (instead of my having to find out ) the consequences would be small - something he would feel was more than fair and I would keep my word on the matter.
> 
> So one day he came into my room and gave me a dollar bill his grandmother had given him and said I don't deserve this. ( he had torn it up before handing it to me just to emphasize his misery! ) I asked him why and he said the neighbors son had put him on his handlebars and rode him to 7/11 ( which he wasn't allowed to do ) he went inside with him and the kid put candy in his pocket and had him walk out with it telling him he had stole the candy really - not my son.  The boy was older and my son went along.  Yes it was a bad decision but how wonderful that he came and told me how badly he felt and cried while he was telling me about it!  Why was he crying?  Not because he thought he was getting a spanking.  Because he genuinely felt guilt for something he had done.  I told him I had been tricked before and regretted not speaking up.
> 
> We talked it over and I told him I was willing to pay for the candy that was taken and accompany him to the store ( to apologise to the manager )  if he was willing to go with me to the neighbors house and talk to the boys mother about what happened.  He agreed.  We went to their door and the mother and boy were standing there.   Her son was a few years older and didn't say a word.  The mother said  to her son in front of us if I find out you did this I'll kill you!  My son and I were horrified.  No wonder the boy wouldn't tell his mother the truth.  He was afraid of her!
> 
> Fear is a very negative emotion to raise children by.  It inhibits the ability to trust and be open with the very people they should be able to trust the most!  Their parents!
Click to expand...


Thank you Jeri.  I thought this is an excellent example of what we were talking about by "motivation".  Your son was obviously taught a strong moral/ethical code, which is a far stronger and more effective incentive than the negative reinforcement of avoiding pain (punishment, fine, jail, etc).  Imparting that code serves as a guide for any situation, rather than a piecemeal threat that "if you steal you'll get spanked" followed by "if you lie you'll get spanked" and later, "this just in, if you transfer the violence we just taught you to other kids you'll get spanked some more".

You don't hand the kid individual fish-lessons; you teach the child how to fish.  When you've done that, violence just isn't necessary.


----------



## Pogo

percysunshine said:


> Question asked, question answered;



?? 

WelfareQueen's old avatar?


----------



## Pogo

Jeremiah said:


> Most of the people I corresponded with in prison ministry were beaten severely as children.  Some went on to boot camp, all went on to prison.  The common denominator with all of them was their parents used violence as a teaching tool and it backfired.  More discipline is not what brought them around.  Love brought them around and love transformed them.
> 
> You could go to any prison and ask them if its the punishment there that will keep them from returning.  They will tell you that isn't it.   It's finding their self worth and purpose and feeling loved that will keep them from returning.



Yes, again people are motivated by the positive, not the negative.

"Motivation" by fear of punishment isn't motivation.  That's what we call "control".  Control is winning the battle of actions.  It fails to win the heart.


----------



## Wake

Jarlaxle said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think any form of physical punishment for children should be outlawed. I've seen both extremes and its not a pretty sight. I know one guy in prison for killing his father due to the physical and mental abuse he suffered as a child.  I know a woman who is a train wreck due to her parents trying to befriend her and withhold all punishment.  IMHO raising your child can be done without ever laying a finger on them. It is more difficult especially if your child is willful but the results are outstanding.  I relate raising children to training dogs.  The same principles apply. You start young. You give them lots of opportunities to succeed. You give them as many yes's as possible. You limit the no's to whats absolutely necessary. You over celebrate their victories and use their losses as learning opportunities.  Your disapproval is more than enough to punish a child if you have done everything else at least halfway right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias, there are two things I want you to know before we discuss this further. 1), I respect you. 2), you're OK in my book. That said, we disagree a bit on some stuff.
> 
> Physical punishment should be legal, so long as it doesn't cross any boundaries. Using a paddle or a hand on the rump is very different then slapping or punching the face, or beating, kicking punching, etc. Evolution made it so that the butt has fat on it, to make sitting more comfortable, while also making disciplining your children easier for both of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could cripple a child for life by paddling his/her butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes young kids are little demons. I was one of them. Reasoning didn't work. You couldn't reason with me, therefore, you _couldn't_ stop me. Little ones with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder can be so hyper and inattentive that only a few things will drive the message into the brain, and ensure it's remembered. And along the lines of being a hyper, evil, and intelligent brat, I soon learned that buying my love and obedience could be abused by me. Hitler did it, too. Sending me to my room did nothing, because video games. Having me stand in the corner did nothing but give me time to collect and organize my evil plans. Every little chink in my parents' armor was learned and abused, making it easy to come out ahead in bargaining.
> 
> Then the day came when it all stopped. I learned fear. After breaking something else Mom and Dad brought me into the living room, and I was notified that my butt was going to be spanked. This was new to me, because everything had been going so well. The very thought of this impending attack on my behind made me think that maybe, just maybe, my parents wouldn't lay down and take it any more. So with the bending of my body over Dad's knee, and the torture of the eternal two minutes, fear was not only learned... but remembered. Needless to say, so did respect. And with that my dreams of global domination came to an end.
> 
> If you my friend can get your children to obey you without having to spank their behinds, you are fortunate. That is rare, and was certainly not the case for my parents. Interestingly enough, we trained our puppy by scruffing her as punishment for biting people, running away, etc. She was a very loving, obedient, loyal sweetheart, and never got in trouble with the pound.
> 
> What you've mentioned about celebrating their victories and using their losses as learning opportunities is good, and I could see using that side-by-side with spanking out really bad behavior (maybe a caveat here would be to not over-celebrate, though?). If you were my parent, and I was very young, you would have to control me with spanking (give me very good reason to fear, respect, and obey you), or I'd likely burn your house down because no one's given me reason to not dare explore with matches.
> 
> Sometimes spanking is necessary and justified, and if you have reason to do so as a parent, you also have to keep it in moderation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It is NEVER necessary, it is NEVER justified, and it is NEVER the right thing to do.  Anyone doing it needs to be stopped by any means necessary up to and including lethal force.
Click to expand...


Jarl, it would go far beyond the bounds of disciplinary spanking to cause that kind of damage. I feel that's less than honest of you to say that, because of all the times I've been spanked the worst was a slightly red bottom that stung for a few minutes. 

Well, you certainly have the right to an opinion. It's just extreme and unreasonable, but so long as that sentiment doesn't influence our laws that's alright. I want to understand better where this sentiment is coming from. Were you ever spanked? What were your experiences?


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> Which is odd, because being spanked as discipline taught me to not ever hit people except for truly self-defense situations.



Can you elaborate on the process of that conclusion?
_How_ did that lesson form?  Did it amount to a change in behaviour, or was it establishing that standard from a cold start?

In other words, how did that physical contact make its point?  And were there no other factors in that lesson?  Like peer pressure?


----------



## Wake

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is odd, because being spanked as discipline taught me to not ever hit people except for truly self-defense situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on the process of that conclusion?
> _How_ did that lesson form?  Did it amount to a change in behaviour, or was it establishing that standard from a cold start?
> 
> In other words, how did that physical contact make its point?  And were there no other factors in that lesson?  Like peer pressure?
Click to expand...


Before going the spanking route, my parents would scold me and try to reason with me to not go out and hit people. Having ADHD and being very young, I didn't not listen to them; it simply did not get through. When I started attacking kids/adults with my fists and sharp objects, that was the last straw, and something needed to be done. By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Pogo said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone here asked me to share this story as it reinforces the thought that there are other methods besides spanking to bring correction.
> 
> When my son was very small I told him if he would be honest and tell me what he's done wrong (instead of my having to find out ) the consequences would be small - something he would feel was more than fair and I would keep my word on the matter.
> 
> So one day he came into my room and gave me a dollar bill his grandmother had given him and said I don't deserve this. ( he had torn it up before handing it to me just to emphasize his misery! ) I asked him why and he said the neighbors son had put him on his handlebars and rode him to 7/11 ( which he wasn't allowed to do ) he went inside with him and the kid put candy in his pocket and had him walk out with it telling him he had stole the candy really - not my son.  The boy was older and my son went along.  Yes it was a bad decision but how wonderful that he came and told me how badly he felt and cried while he was telling me about it!  Why was he crying?  Not because he thought he was getting a spanking.  Because he genuinely felt guilt for something he had done.  I told him I had been tricked before and regretted not speaking up.
> 
> We talked it over and I told him I was willing to pay for the candy that was taken and accompany him to the store ( to apologise to the manager )  if he was willing to go with me to the neighbors house and talk to the boys mother about what happened.  He agreed.  We went to their door and the mother and boy were standing there.   Her son was a few years older and didn't say a word.  The mother said  to her son in front of us if I find out you did this I'll kill you!  My son and I were horrified.  No wonder the boy wouldn't tell his mother the truth.  He was afraid of her!
> 
> Fear is a very negative emotion to raise children by.  It inhibits the ability to trust and be open with the very people they should be able to trust the most!  Their parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Jeri.  I thought this is an excellent example of what we were talking about by "motivation".  Your son was obviously taught a strong moral/ethical code, which is a far stronger and more effective incentive than the negative reinforcement of avoiding pain (punishment, fine, jail, etc).  Imparting that code serves as a guide for any situation, rather than a piecemeal threat that "if you steal you'll get spanked" followed by "if you lie you'll get spanked" and later, "this just in, if you transfer the violence we just taught you to other kids you'll get spanked some more".
> 
> You don't hand the kid individual fish-lessons; you teach the child how to fish.  When you've done that, violence just isn't necessary.
Click to expand...


 Fishing is a good analogy!  Because the idea of successful parenting is to work ourselves OUT of a job.  That is the end goal I think.


----------



## Iceweasel

Jeremiah said:


> Most of the people I corresponded with in prison ministry were beaten severely as children.  Some went on to boot camp, all went on to prison.  The common denominator with all of them was their parents used violence as a teaching tool and it backfired.  More discipline is not what brought them around.  Love brought them around and love transformed them.
> 
> You could go to any prison and ask them if its the punishment there that will keep them from returning.  They will tell you that isn't it.   It's finding their self worth and purpose and feeling loved that will keep them from returning.


The topic is spanking, not beatings. Jesus Christ.


----------



## Iceweasel

Pogo said:


> You're actually going to try to draw a connection between corporal punishment and _*graffiti*_?
> 
> My, this thread has its logical mood swings.


The dots are actually too far apart for you? lol.


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is odd, because being spanked as discipline taught me to not ever hit people except for truly self-defense situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on the process of that conclusion?
> _How_ did that lesson form?  Did it amount to a change in behaviour, or was it establishing that standard from a cold start?
> 
> In other words, how did that physical contact make its point?  And were there no other factors in that lesson?  Like peer pressure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before going the spanking route, my parents would scold me and try to reason with me to not go out and hit people. Having ADHD and being very young, I didn't not listen to them; it simply did not get through. When I started attacking kids/adults with my fists and sharp objects, that was the last straw, and something needed to be done. By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.
Click to expand...


Ah but their message before and after physical contact was the same, was it not?

So why would you elect to .... not "adhere to" but _see the morality_ in that message after the physical contact, since it was the same message before?  What exactly changed?

Or was it actually adhering to that guideline for fear of physical force?

In other words, why is hitting people wrong?  Not now after subsequent experiences, but in that moment immediately following that physical contact?  How did it change the words of that message?


----------



## Pogo

Jeremiah said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone here asked me to share this story as it reinforces the thought that there are other methods besides spanking to bring correction.
> 
> When my son was very small I told him if he would be honest and tell me what he's done wrong (instead of my having to find out ) the consequences would be small - something he would feel was more than fair and I would keep my word on the matter.
> 
> So one day he came into my room and gave me a dollar bill his grandmother had given him and said I don't deserve this. ( he had torn it up before handing it to me just to emphasize his misery! ) I asked him why and he said the neighbors son had put him on his handlebars and rode him to 7/11 ( which he wasn't allowed to do ) he went inside with him and the kid put candy in his pocket and had him walk out with it telling him he had stole the candy really - not my son.  The boy was older and my son went along.  Yes it was a bad decision but how wonderful that he came and told me how badly he felt and cried while he was telling me about it!  Why was he crying?  Not because he thought he was getting a spanking.  Because he genuinely felt guilt for something he had done.  I told him I had been tricked before and regretted not speaking up.
> 
> We talked it over and I told him I was willing to pay for the candy that was taken and accompany him to the store ( to apologise to the manager )  if he was willing to go with me to the neighbors house and talk to the boys mother about what happened.  He agreed.  We went to their door and the mother and boy were standing there.   Her son was a few years older and didn't say a word.  The mother said  to her son in front of us if I find out you did this I'll kill you!  My son and I were horrified.  No wonder the boy wouldn't tell his mother the truth.  He was afraid of her!
> 
> Fear is a very negative emotion to raise children by.  It inhibits the ability to trust and be open with the very people they should be able to trust the most!  Their parents!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jeri.  I thought this is an excellent example of what we were talking about by "motivation".  Your son was obviously taught a strong moral/ethical code, which is a far stronger and more effective incentive than the negative reinforcement of avoiding pain (punishment, fine, jail, etc).  Imparting that code serves as a guide for any situation, rather than a piecemeal threat that "if you steal you'll get spanked" followed by "if you lie you'll get spanked" and later, "this just in, if you transfer the violence we just taught you to other kids you'll get spanked some more".
> 
> You don't hand the kid individual fish-lessons; you teach the child how to fish.  When you've done that, violence just isn't necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishing is a good analogy!  Because the idea of successful parenting is to work ourselves OUT of a job.  That is the end goal I think.
Click to expand...


Yeah obviously I'm referencing the "teach a man to fish" maxim.  Seems to me spanking is handing out lesson-fish one at a time, whereas reasoning is teaching a child to fish for himself.  As yours already knew when the convenience store incident happened; he was pre-equipped to do the right thing.


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're actually going to try to draw a connection between corporal punishment and _*graffiti*_?
> 
> My, this thread has its logical mood swings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dots are actually too far apart for you? lol.
Click to expand...


Yup, not even on the same plane dood.  Because everybody knows, the one and only reason graffiti exists anywhere is that somebody's parents forgot to spank them for it.


----------



## Wake

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on the process of that conclusion?
> _How_ did that lesson form?  Did it amount to a change in behaviour, or was it establishing that standard from a cold start?
> 
> In other words, how did that physical contact make its point?  And were there no other factors in that lesson?  Like peer pressure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before going the spanking route, my parents would scold me and try to reason with me to not go out and hit people. Having ADHD and being very young, I didn't not listen to them; it simply did not get through. When I started attacking kids/adults with my fists and sharp objects, that was the last straw, and something needed to be done. By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah but their message before and after physical contact was the same, was it not?
> 
> So why would you elect to .... not "adhere to" but _see the morality_ in that message after the physical contact, since it was the same message before?  What exactly changed?
> 
> Or was it actually adhering to that guideline for fear of physical force?
> 
> In other words, why is hitting people wrong?  Not now after subsequent experiences, but in that moment immediately following that physical contact?  How did it change the words of that message?
Click to expand...


Their message was the same. As a young child with ADHD, there was no seeing any morality. Because my brain was still developing, I wasn't self-aware enough to contemplate and understand the concept of morality. Fear of physical force worked, because it was absolutely the only thing that could practically stop me. Hitting people in itself isn't wrong; people hit in self-defense, to dislodge foodstuffs from someone's throat, etc. If it were inherently wrong then no wars, acts of self-defense, or attempts to save lives would ever be right. Attacking someone with fists or a knife without valid reason is, though. The pain of the spanking and the acknowledgement that it would happen again if I tried to maim or kill someone opened my mind a bit and made me listen and obey their message.


----------



## Iceweasel

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're actually going to try to draw a connection between corporal punishment and _*graffiti*_?
> 
> My, this thread has its logical mood swings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dots are actually too far apart for you? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, not even on the same plane dood.  Because everybody knows, the one and only reason graffiti exists anywhere is that somebody's parents forgot to spank them for it.
Click to expand...

I was right dood. The dots are too apart for you. Why bother discussing anything with anyone? Lack of discipline has an effect and the more idiot parents there are that equate spanking with beatings, the more bad behavior we see. There, I connected the dots for you. This time.


----------



## Iceweasel

Pogo said:


> Ah but their message before and after physical contact was the same, was it not?


Ah, but it had more meaning afterwards. Get someone to walk you through it.


----------



## Iceweasel

Pogo said:


> Yeah obviously I'm referencing the "teach a man to fish" maxim.  Seems to me spanking is handing out lesson-fish one at a time, whereas reasoning is teaching a child to fish for himself.  As yours already knew when the convenience store incident happened; he was pre-equipped to do the right thing.


No one suggesting spanking an not teaching reasoning. You obviously are suffering badly from lack of the later.


----------



## Synergy

Wake said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is odd, because being spanked as discipline taught me to not ever hit people except for truly self-defense situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on the process of that conclusion?
> _How_ did that lesson form?  Did it amount to a change in behaviour, or was it establishing that standard from a cold start?
> 
> In other words, how did that physical contact make its point?  And were there no other factors in that lesson?  Like peer pressure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before going the spanking route, my parents would scold me and try to reason with me to not go out and hit people. Having ADHD and being very young, I didn't not listen to them; it simply did not get through. When I started attacking kids/adults with my fists and sharp objects, that was the last straw, and something needed to be done. By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the anecdote. However, it remains merely an anecdote. That is not to say you are lying or exaggerating in your experience, but that it is poor quality evidence. In addition to the obvious impossibility of verifying validity or accuracy is the issue of correlation and causation.

The correlation and causation fallacy is most commonly an issue when other variables are not adjusted for. In isolated samples such as this (a sample of one anecdote) this issue is magnified. Thus is the importance of well designed studies and peer review/reproducible results.

Perhaps your story is exactly true the way you said it. However, your assessment of cause and effect could be significantly skewed due to a lack of controlled variables that may have impacted how you assimilated the experience and could have been adjusted for in a series of peer reviewed studies. Or there could be no discernible reason at all why you turn up as a statistical outlier -- and that is perfectly normal even in the most robust of topics. As with individual cases of not dying of the effects of smoking being cited as proof that cigarettes are harmless, it's just not a tenable argument. Better to err on the side of caution given the statistical probabilities involved, as judged by the current state of peer review.

Peer Reviewed Data > Personal Anecdotes


----------



## Wake

Synergy said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on the process of that conclusion?
> _How_ did that lesson form?  Did it amount to a change in behaviour, or was it establishing that standard from a cold start?
> 
> In other words, how did that physical contact make its point?  And were there no other factors in that lesson?  Like peer pressure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before going the spanking route, my parents would scold me and try to reason with me to not go out and hit people. Having ADHD and being very young, I didn't not listen to them; it simply did not get through. When I started attacking kids/adults with my fists and sharp objects, that was the last straw, and something needed to be done. By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the anecdote. However, it remains merely an anecdote. That is not to say you are lying or exaggerating in your experience, but that it is poor quality evidence. In addition to the obvious impossibility of verifying validity or accuracy is the issue of correlation and causation.
> 
> The correlation and causation fallacy is most commonly an issue when other variables are not adjusted for. In isolated samples such as this (a sample of one anecdote) this issue is magnified. Thus is the importance of well designed studies and peer review/reproducible results.
> 
> Perhaps your story is exactly true the way you said it. However, your assessment of cause and effect could be significantly skewed due to a lack of controlled variables that may have impacted how you assimilated the experience and could have been adjusted for in a series of peer reviewed studies. Or there could be no discernible reason at all why you turn up as a statistical outlier -- and that is perfectly normal even in the most robust of topics. As with individual cases of not dying of the effects of smoking being cited as proof that cigarettes are harmless, it's just not a tenable argument. Better to err on the side of caution given the statistical probabilities involved, as judged by the current state of peer review.
> 
> Peer Reviewed Data > Personal Anecdotes
Click to expand...


Respectfully, I'm not sure what your point is. Since we're not in court, but discussing our views and opinions regarding spanking, personal experiences are quite acceptable. I don't particularly trust peer-reviewed data, either, because more than a few times have people gotten it completely wrong, and/or let their own biases taint their work. I used to be like you and be a rigid, scientific machine that put scientific numbers above most if not all things. Looking back, it seems it made me blind to some things otherwise regarded as common sense. I was less human and more machine.

...not only that, but it annoyed people who simply wanted a decent, casual discussion.


----------



## Montrovant

Synergy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of physical violence as a reprimand teaches children that physical violence is a useful and necessary manner of serving "justice," which is subjectively applied by each individual.
> 
> Not only does spanking ignore the countless detrimental externalities that often result (for both that individual personally, and the surrounding environment he/she affects), it isn't even as effective as alternative strategies of positive reinforcement.
> 
> Whether there are individuals that survived such forms of punishment and turned into great individuals tells us absolutely nothing scientifically. By that logic, all it would take to prove that cigarettes are harmless is to find a few centenarians that died of natural causes in spite of a lifelong smoking habit. I'm sure it has happened plenty, as we expect such outliers to occur in science and statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that those who 'survived' spanking and became great individuals are so few and far between?  Why do you assume they are outliers rather than the norm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hop on Google scholar and test your null hypothesis. Countless studies exist, most often with regard to externalities. Statistical significance doesn't depend on miniscule totals of outliers if the overall sample/population size is very large. So, "few and far between" could be anything from a handful of individuals to thousands or millions depending on the proportional ratio of said outliers to whatever sample/population size you are analyzing.
Click to expand...


I didn't provide any hypothesis.  I simply asked why you seemingly made an assumption.  You certainly haven't provided any data.

It's odd how you have belittled others in this thread for basing their opinions on personal experience rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature, yet have not linked to nor discussed nor pointed out any yourself.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're actually going to try to draw a connection between corporal punishment and _*graffiti*_?
> 
> My, this thread has its logical mood swings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dots are actually too far apart for you? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, not even on the same plane dood.  Because everybody knows, the one and only reason graffiti exists anywhere is that somebody's parents forgot to spank them for it.
Click to expand...


You *did* compare spanking to invading a country.....


----------



## Synergy

Wake said:


> Synergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before going the spanking route, my parents would scold me and try to reason with me to not go out and hit people. Having ADHD and being very young, I didn't not listen to them; it simply did not get through. When I started attacking kids/adults with my fists and sharp objects, that was the last straw, and something needed to be done. By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the anecdote. However, it remains merely an anecdote. That is not to say you are lying or exaggerating in your experience, but that it is poor quality evidence. In addition to the obvious impossibility of verifying validity or accuracy is the issue of correlation and causation.
> 
> The correlation and causation fallacy is most commonly an issue when other variables are not adjusted for. In isolated samples such as this (a sample of one anecdote) this issue is magnified. Thus is the importance of well designed studies and peer review/reproducible results.
> 
> Perhaps your story is exactly true the way you said it. However, your assessment of cause and effect could be significantly skewed due to a lack of controlled variables that may have impacted how you assimilated the experience and could have been adjusted for in a series of peer reviewed studies. Or there could be no discernible reason at all why you turn up as a statistical outlier -- and that is perfectly normal even in the most robust of topics. As with individual cases of not dying of the effects of smoking being cited as proof that cigarettes are harmless, it's just not a tenable argument. Better to err on the side of caution given the statistical probabilities involved, as judged by the current state of peer review.
> 
> Peer Reviewed Data > Personal Anecdotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I'm not sure what your point is. Since we're not in court, but discussing our views and opinions regarding spanking, personal experiences are quite acceptable. I don't particularly trust peer-reviewed data, either, because more than a few times have people gotten it completely wrong, and/or let their own biases taint their work. I used to be like you and be a rigid, scientific machine that put scientific numbers above most if not all things. Looking back, it seems it made me blind to some things otherwise regarded as common sense. I was less human and more machine.
> 
> ...not only that, but it annoyed people who simply wanted a decent, casual discussion.
Click to expand...


Peer review is reliable for the precise reason you proclaim to dislike it -- sometimes the peer review consensus is wrong, but unlike religion, philosophy or politics it is self correcting. Moreover, there is always a reason. It is always due to a new discovery typically of an unforeseen confounding variable unless the previous studies to date were merely of poor quality to begin with. 

The reason so many people tend to doubt the peer review process is that they don't know how to distinguish from a high or low quality study. It's largely an objective process, in fact. Not a matter of subjective whim. The media exacerbates the process with incorrectly interpreting and reporting results.

The peer review process of science is the most reliable and accurate method we currently have to separate fact from fiction. That doesn't mean it has all the answers, or that every answer it currently offers is unconditionally correct. It is merely the best approximation of the truth based on the best available evidence to date. Concepts and understandings fluctuate with time, but ultimately trend in a direction of order and agreement due to the stringent and objective structure of the process.

With that said, sure. Any form of evidence or philosophical hypothesis is allowed, but I figured our goal was what the truth actually is as opposed to what we all can dream up as possible explanations?


----------



## Wake

Synergy said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the anecdote. However, it remains merely an anecdote. That is not to say you are lying or exaggerating in your experience, but that it is poor quality evidence. In addition to the obvious impossibility of verifying validity or accuracy is the issue of correlation and causation.
> 
> The correlation and causation fallacy is most commonly an issue when other variables are not adjusted for. In isolated samples such as this (a sample of one anecdote) this issue is magnified. Thus is the importance of well designed studies and peer review/reproducible results.
> 
> Perhaps your story is exactly true the way you said it. However, your assessment of cause and effect could be significantly skewed due to a lack of controlled variables that may have impacted how you assimilated the experience and could have been adjusted for in a series of peer reviewed studies. Or there could be no discernible reason at all why you turn up as a statistical outlier -- and that is perfectly normal even in the most robust of topics. As with individual cases of not dying of the effects of smoking being cited as proof that cigarettes are harmless, it's just not a tenable argument. Better to err on the side of caution given the statistical probabilities involved, as judged by the current state of peer review.
> 
> Peer Reviewed Data > Personal Anecdotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I'm not sure what your point is. Since we're not in court, but discussing our views and opinions regarding spanking, personal experiences are quite acceptable. I don't particularly trust peer-reviewed data, either, because more than a few times have people gotten it completely wrong, and/or let their own biases taint their work. I used to be like you and be a rigid, scientific machine that put scientific numbers above most if not all things. Looking back, it seems it made me blind to some things otherwise regarded as common sense. I was less human and more machine.
> 
> ...not only that, but it annoyed people who simply wanted a decent, casual discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peer review is reliable for the precise reason you proclaim to dislike it -- sometimes the peer review consensus is wrong, but unlike religion, philosophy or politics it is self correcting. Moreover, there is always a reason. It is always due to a new discovery typically of an unforeseen confounding variable unless the previous studies to date were merely of poor quality to begin with.
> 
> The reason so many people tend to doubt the peer review process is that they don't know how to distinguish from a high or low quality study. It's largely an objective process, in fact. Not a matter of subjective whim. The media exacerbates the process with incorrectly interpreting and reporting results.
> 
> The peer review process of science is the most reliable and accurate method we currently have to separate fact from fiction. That doesn't mean it has all the answers, or that every answer it currently offers is unconditionally correct. It is merely the best approximation of the truth based on the best available evidence to date. Concepts and understandings fluctuate with time, but ultimately trend in a direction of order and agreement due to the stringent and objective structure of the process.
> 
> With that said, sure. Any form of evidence or philosophical hypothesis is allowed, but I figured our goal was what the truth actually is as opposed to what we all can dream up as possible explanations?
Click to expand...


I like reasoning with people instead of picking and choosing various studies that support one political agenda or another. 

If you would, reason with me instead of pointing to studies and assuming they're worth more than personal experience.

People can be very intelligent. However, high intelligence doesn't erase everything else that comes with our humanity.

I do not trust "scientific" studies because, like it or not, scientists are faulty and prone to being biased with their research. Why do you think the political Right and Left fling their little studies around so much? What are your personal thoughts on this issue, what do you propose, and what do you feel about it? 

If you want, I could show you what it means to be an objective, scientific machine. Then again, those who proclaim to go by science and numbers are rarely willing to strip away everything that's been instilled in them by the society they were raised in, including ethics, morals, beliefs, concepts, and all other kinds of hypothetical, man-made structures.

Edit: You may respond to me if and when you are unbanned.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dots are actually too far apart for you? lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, not even on the same plane dood.  Because everybody knows, the one and only reason graffiti exists anywhere is that somebody's parents forgot to spank them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You *did* compare spanking to invading a country.....
Click to expand...


No I didn't.  I used those elements in an *analogy*, out of which you've stripped the rest of the context so that no meaning remains, just to make it look bad.

Not the same thing anyway-- the trollposter here made a leap of *false causation*, assuming that the concept of spanking is the one and only reason that graffiti exists. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

You may not have liked that _analogy_ way back, but that's got zero to do with somebody else's fallacy of _causation_.


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> Synergy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before going the spanking route, my parents would scold me and try to reason with me to not go out and hit people. Having ADHD and being very young, I didn't not listen to them; it simply did not get through. When I started attacking kids/adults with my fists and sharp objects, that was the last straw, and something needed to be done. By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the anecdote. However, it remains merely an anecdote. That is not to say you are lying or exaggerating in your experience, but that it is poor quality evidence. In addition to the obvious impossibility of verifying validity or accuracy is the issue of correlation and causation.
> 
> The correlation and causation fallacy is most commonly an issue when other variables are not adjusted for. In isolated samples such as this (a sample of one anecdote) this issue is magnified. Thus is the importance of well designed studies and peer review/reproducible results.
> 
> Perhaps your story is exactly true the way you said it. However, your assessment of cause and effect could be significantly skewed due to a lack of controlled variables that may have impacted how you assimilated the experience and could have been adjusted for in a series of peer reviewed studies. Or there could be no discernible reason at all why you turn up as a statistical outlier -- and that is perfectly normal even in the most robust of topics. As with individual cases of not dying of the effects of smoking being cited as proof that cigarettes are harmless, it's just not a tenable argument. Better to err on the side of caution given the statistical probabilities involved, as judged by the current state of peer review.
> 
> Peer Reviewed Data > Personal Anecdotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I'm not sure what your point is. Since we're not in court, but discussing our views and opinions regarding spanking, personal experiences are quite acceptable. I don't particularly trust peer-reviewed data, either, because more than a few times have people gotten it completely wrong, and/or let their own biases taint their work. I used to be like you and be a rigid, scientific machine that put scientific numbers above most if not all things. Looking back, it seems it made me blind to some things otherwise regarded as common sense. I was less human and more machine.
> 
> ...not only that, but it annoyed people who simply wanted a decent, casual discussion.
Click to expand...


It did, but his approach was invalid anyway.  You related a story; the function is to analyze how the process worked therein, not to prove whether the story happened.  That's irrelevant.

So anyway back to the actual incident...



> By spanking me it "woke" me up to receive their message loud and clear that physical assault with fists or knives/forks is not acceptable. After being spanked the first time, I started to fear and respect and ultimately obey my parents more and more, because now there was a very good reason to listen to them.



I hear two different things here.  This passage says you now started to "listen to them", whereas before you didn't listen.  But you also say your reason for discontinuing such behaviour was fear of more physical punishment.  Yet if you had "listened", the reason would have been the moral lesson they taught you.  So I'm left unclear from this whether your reason at that point for discontinuing a litany of assaults was that you heard the message, or that you feared the penalty.  They are two different things, are they not?

Assuming the latter was your reasoning, at what point and how did that transmute from a negative reinforcement (risk assessment of physical penalty) into a positive moral code?

And corollary question: are we to infer from this anecdote that the remedy for ADHD is physical punishment?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

I apologize that my earlier post was so unclear. I rewrote/retyped it and then didn't correct it. 

I have studied this all my life but I am no where near the authority of some here. I was a child who was not expected, not supposed to survive. 

Some may want to read Sanford's book, Strong At the Broken Places. Her research shows that those who were hit as children do not grow up to hit their own children. 

My question is, where do people learn that hitting children is okay or even, good?


----------



## laughinReaper

dukect45 said:


> This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.
> 
> But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.
> 
> Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube
> 
> Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Father&#8217;s high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more.  In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face.  The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups.  When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups.  At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


IDK I was spanked with a belt as was pretty much everyone I knew as a kid. You didn't see us shooting up schools, disrespecting teachers and other authority figures, and roaming the streets at all hours of the night. Why? because we all knew if we disobeyed our parents or those our parent put in charge of us,we'd get the belt.

 By now everyone has seen the principal dragging the kid to the office because the kid refused to obey. The parent complained about the treatment of her child. This never would have happened when I was a kid. My parents response would have been one of horror. What did *I* do that got me sent to the office? Why did *I* fall out when told to walk. How dare *I *embarass my parents like that! The adults at school would think *I *was an undisciplined brat and  my conduct would cast my parents in a bad light. Not only would my parents have appoligized for my conduct in school, but I wouldn't be able to sit down for a week once I got home. 

What seems like reasonable behavior to a child may not be in reality. Kids don't have all the capabilities and information to reason as adults do. Kids need a swat on the butt when it becomes clear that they are not going to listen to their parents instructions. When reason doesn't work, the fear of pain often does. The child doesn't have to understand why YOU think they aren't old enough to cross a busy street even when they think they are old enough,they just have obey your instructions. It could save their lives. Want to know why the kids are run amok? It's because they lack proper parental discipline. I am in no way advocating child abuse, but good old fashioned swat on the butt would save people like that principal a lot of grief.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, not even on the same plane dood.  Because everybody knows, the one and only reason graffiti exists anywhere is that somebody's parents forgot to spank them for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You *did* compare spanking to invading a country.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I used those elements in an *analogy*, out of which you've stripped the rest of the context so that no meaning remains, just to make it look bad.
> 
> Not the same thing anyway-- the trollposter here made a leap of *false causation*, assuming that the concept of spanking is the one and only reason that graffiti exists. Which is, of course, ridiculous.
> 
> You may not have liked that _analogy_ way back, but that's got zero to do with somebody else's fallacy of _causation_.
Click to expand...


Clearly my humor failed to translate to type.


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.
> 
> I would note that *you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one*.  That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance.  Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  None of us have ever _been _children.  We have no idea because we're "completely and totally ignorant" of what that could be like.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are.

The simple fact that you thing that being a child at some point gives you insight on anything parental in nature reflects that.  I have no idea how you could possibly think that being a child somehow means you understand one iota about parenting much less the simple fact that there is no single toolkit to handle every single child.


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, neither do people who have children.
> 
> From what I've read on this board, way too many of them have so little understanding, affection and control of their children, they actually hit them.
> 
> Now that is ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  None of us have ever _been _children.  We have no idea because we're "completely and totally ignorant" of what that could be like.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are.
> 
> The simple fact that you thing that being a child at some point gives you insight on anything parental in nature reflects that.  I have no idea how you could possibly think that being a child somehow means you understand one iota about parenting much less the simple fact that there is no single toolkit to handle every single child.
Click to expand...


Oh please -- spare me the "I know everything" speech... it ain't selling.


----------



## FA_Q2

JimH52 said:


> My wife and I were foster parents during the days when spanking was allowed.  I was president of my state association of FP when the ruling from the state came down outlawing spanking.  A lot of FP just gave it up.  We went through intensive training to teach FP different methods of discipline.
> 
> It seems to me that spanking had its place, but this is a new generation.  Many kids would rather be spanked than go through the process of consequence.  The fine line between spanking for discipline and parental abuse has taken the former off the board.
> 
> So the answer to your question is, Yes, it does work with some kids.  But No, it is no longer an option in today's society.



Except you are completely incorrect that it is no longer an option in our society.

The simple fact is that it is not only an option but one that is practiced regularly by a plurality of parents today.
Poll: Most Approve of Spanking Kids - ABC News

I would also point out to both you and Pogo that spanking is NOT a useful tool if it is practiced in a vacuum.  IOW, you cant just spank your child and be done with it.  That seems to be the stance that Pogo is arguing from (as well as equating it with beatings) when that is guaranteed to fail.  Such comes not only with a why but also other consequences.  Parents that simply spank and be done with it will quickly find out that children dont really care (in general) because the event is to temporary.


----------



## FA_Q2

Asclepias said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you have to legislate culture.  At some time in US history it was ok to lynch people. In the wild west it was ok to have gun fights on main street. At another time it was ok to fight dogs.  At what point do you stop waiting for culture to change in order to stop heinous acts no matter how accepted they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya but I don't think anti-lynching laws were at all unreasonable.  Nor is criminal child abuse, that's fine.  I'd draw the line before making any and all spanking illegal though, even though I can't support the practice morally.  It's just too slippery a slope for legislation.  It would bring a judicial morass.
> 
> And I don't believe culture changes passively by waiting for it but by actively driving it by public opinion.  Laws tend to follow public opinion anyway, not lead it.  So what we're doing right here is a part of that active process.  Bottom line is that popular behavior doesn't change because it's forced to by law; it changes because it _desires_ the change.  So the objective is to persuade the desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were just examples to show the urgency of some needed changes.  If laws had not been used to force that change when do you think lynchings or dog fighting would have stopped?
> 
> The one thing I have learned is that people do not change by public opinion fast enough or completely enough without a law to spur the change.  The other is if a leader can step forth and convince people to change.  Most people when confronted with a choice between changing their minds and proving the other person wrong will set about looking for the proof.
Click to expand...


You cant legislate parenting.  That simply is not going to work and I cant fathom why you would want to.  The state is one of the worst parents a child can have.  The best thing for them to do is not interfere past outright abuse.

Spanking is not abuse either no matter how you want to slice it.


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  None of us have ever _been _children.  We have no idea because we're "completely and totally ignorant" of what that could be like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are.
> 
> The simple fact that you thing that being a child at some point gives you insight on anything parental in nature reflects that.  I have no idea how you could possibly think that being a child somehow means you understand one iota about parenting much less the simple fact that there is no single toolkit to handle every single child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please -- spare me the "I know everything" speech... it ain't selling.
Click to expand...


Since you consistently have accused others here of stuffing your mouth with straw I would hope you could point out where I have EVER claimed that I know everything or even a majority of anything.  
I know you cant because I have never claimed to.  I have not claimed to be the best parent either let alone perfect.  What I have calmed is that you do not know what it is like to be a parent if you have not been one.  Your pithy remark above just illustrates that you cant accept that blatant reality not that I am claiming to know everything.  

I havent tried to sell you anything.  Try again.


----------



## FA_Q2

Iceweasel said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "managed without it," do you mean ADHD?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that was the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...actually, lack of social skills, a short attention span, and hyper-focusing on certain things are all manifestations of ADHD. For some children with ADHD, social interactions are problematic. The combination of impulsivity, immaturity, and difficulty reading the social cues of others can lead to difficult and painful peer relationships. Learning to get along with others is a challenge, whether at school, in sports, or with friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. If a kid's world revolves around his xbox, he will have social problems and a short attention span. And will probably have the chemical signs in his noggin as a result. If one stays angry all the time, for example, he too will have created chemicals. The brain reacts to stimulus, you can effect it with your behavior. It's modern man that blames everything on biology or someone/something else. That's why we as a society are becoming weak, immoral and unresponsible. Kids need discipline, not drugs.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.
It is very true that society in general tries to blame everything on circumstances rather than on personal responsibility.  You do not act up because something made you do it  you CHOOSE to do so no matter what alphabet soup affliction you might be diagnosed with.  The idea that we need to coddle such behaviors because of your circumstance is absolutely asinine.

I also am fairly strongly against the move to drug absolutely anyone who might have an issue at one time or another.  Drugs have a major side effect that no one ever actually looks at: it MASKS the problem.  That is not treating it.

I can also see the other side of the issue though because I have a child that is ADHD and he requires some medication.   His brain has been damaged through exposure to very high doses of radiation and that has severely affected his ability to focus.  The drugs assist with that problem.  So, while I see ADHD as being WAY over diagnosed and behavioral modifications should be looked at before drugs even considered, there are times when drugs are necessary.  Building off the following post, such things are made more so by the restrictions that we have placed on other caregivers  primarily schools.  


laughinReaper said:


> By now everyone has seen the principal dragging the kid to the office because the kid refused to obey. The parent complained about the treatment of her child. This never would have happened when I was a kid. My parents response would have been one of horror. What did *I* do that got me sent to the office? Why did *I* fall out when told to walk. How dare *I *embarass my parents like that! The adults at school would think *I *was an undisciplined brat and  my conduct would cast my parents in a bad light. Not only would my parents have appoligized for my conduct in school, but I wouldn't be able to sit down for a week once I got home.
> 
> What seems like reasonable behavior to a child may not be in reality. Kids don't have all the capabilities and information to reason as adults do. Kids need a swat on the butt when it becomes clear that they are not going to listen to their parents instructions. When reason doesn't work, the fear of pain often does. The child doesn't have to understand why YOU think they aren't old enough to cross a busy street even when they think they are old enough,they just have obey your instructions. It could save their lives. Want to know why the kids are run amok? It's because they lack proper parental discipline. I am in no way advocating child abuse, but good old fashioned swat on the butt would save people like that principal a lot of grief.
> 
> 
> Video Shows Principal Dragging Kindergarten Students - YouTube


And that is what I am talking about with the schools.  The parents have done it to them  taken away all semblance of discipline.  The flipped out over this particular principal because they dragged a student who was completely uncooperative to the office.  I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I dont think schools should be allowed to hit or spank (punishment is the realm of parenting) but they certainly should be allowed to remove a disruptive and uncooperative student.  They cant though and the children are fully aware that the teachers are completely lacking any form of discipline.

Using my son as an example, he requires no medication when at home and we actually do not give him any when he does not go to school.  Last week he had none of his medication at all because he did not go to school that week and we have absolutely no problems at all at home.  The school, however, is another story altogether.  They are unable to deal with him because they have absolutely no authority whatsoever.  I watch the way that they speak with the children and it is rather pathetic.  It works for some kids, maybe even with a majority but utterly fails wherever one is willful or scatterbrained.  I can get my child to sit down and focus on an hours worth of homework solid unmediated without a hitch and they cant get him to do so medicated for ten minutes.

My son has done this exact thing and the answer has always been call the parents and tell them to come pick their child up.  When I get there, al l have to do is utter a single word and my son does as he is told.  Why is it so hard for the school then?  Because they have zero presence and zero discipline.

Fortunately, he does not act up in that manner any more though  he finally realized that being at home is FAR worse than school   I have more work than the teach could ever dream of and they have more toys at school then he will have at home if sent home early.  I only have so much control though over his actions eight hours after the fact no matter what reward/discipline tolls I use  one of the side effects of ADHD.


----------



## Tresha91203

Asclepias said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but it is.  Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right.  I am aware of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware of Africans that abuse their children.  My point is that it is not the norm in African culture.  This is something Black Americans picked up from slavery. This and other bad habits.
Click to expand...


In Ghana, not only do the parents spank their children, but any adult in range of the disrespectful or disobedient child. I don't presume that everyone in Ghana does, but no one objected either time I witnessed it. They are not descendents of slaves nor does their spanking of other people's children come from whites. In the villages, where I saw this, it is very rare to see a white person.  You see more whites in Acra,  but I didn't see spanking there so not sure if it is regional. I assume it is. Africa is huge with many many different cultures and languages.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jeremiah said:


> Most of the people I corresponded with in prison ministry were beaten severely as children.  Some went on to boot camp, all went on to prison.  The common denominator with all of them was their parents used violence as a teaching tool and it backfired.  More discipline is not what brought them around.  Love brought them around and love transformed them.
> 
> You could go to any prison and ask them if its the punishment there that will keep them from returning.  They will tell you that isn't it.   It's finding their self worth and purpose and feeling loved that will keep them from returning.



Most in prisons were violently abused.  This is a totally different situation.  

There is a stark difference in beatings and a spanking  something that the people here demanding that spanking is unacceptable refuse to acknowledge.  

It would be like equating a picture of your naked 3 year old in the tub to child pornography (something else that has been tried by the parenting police before).  The connection is outright laughable.


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are.
> 
> The simple fact that you thing that being a child at some point gives you insight on anything parental in nature reflects that.  I have no idea how you could possibly think that being a child somehow means you understand one iota about parenting much less the simple fact that there is no single toolkit to handle every single child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please -- spare me the "I know everything" speech... it ain't selling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you consistently have accused others here of stuffing your mouth with straw I would hope you could point out where I have EVER claimed that I know everything or even a majority of anything.
> I know you cant because I have never claimed to.  I have not claimed to be the best parent either let alone perfect.  What I have calmed is that you do not know what it is like to be a parent if you have not been one.  Your pithy remark above just illustrates that you cant accept that blatant reality not that I am claiming to know everything.
> 
> I havent tried to sell you anything.  Try again.
Click to expand...


You've just contradicted yourself.   Yeah yeah, you're a superior caste, heard it all before, not interested.


----------



## Tresha91203

Asclepias said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is brilliant, Professor!  I love that lesson.  There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king.  I believe it was the king of England.  The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions.  He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting.  He stopped throwing tantrums.  Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents.  He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues.  The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne.  Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died.  That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.
Click to expand...


My dad did that. I learned that he loves me ... sometimes, but not to count on it. It can be taken too far and be more traumatic than a swat on the butt. Its the degree of either method. A swat on the butt, lecture, hug, then done ... or withdraw all affection until that grade comes up (9 weeks). I consider the latter neglect. The former, I'm not bothered about. I've not experienced the former, so could be wrong, but I don't believe so.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Yes.


----------



## Asclepias

Tresha91203 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is brilliant, Professor!  I love that lesson.  There is a great story about a bishop named Fenelon who tutored the incorrigible son of a king.  I believe it was the king of England.  The boy was known for throwing terrible tantrums when it rained outside and Fenelon was hired for his wisdom on how to handle the boy and help him gain control of his wild emotions.  He ordered all the help to ignore the boys tantrums and instead look at him with pity - which would lead to the boy thinking about why everyone was looking at him that way and avoiding him during his tantrums. The boy began to feel embarrassed about how he was acting.  He stopped throwing tantrums.  Fenelon rewarded his efforts with much praise and gained the boys trust. He learned what interested the boy and helped him develop his natural talents.  He always kept his word and taught the future king the importance of good virtues.  The boy was transformed and everyone was looking forward to the day he would take the throne.  Unfortunately he became sick before taking the throne and died.  That is just one example of wisdom solving what a Kings entire court could not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dad did that. I learned that he loves me ... sometimes, but not to count on it. It can be taken too far and be more traumatic than a swat on the butt. Its the degree of either method. A swat on the butt, lecture, hug, then done ... *or withdraw all affection until that grade comes up (9 weeks)*. I consider the latter neglect. The former, I'm not bothered about. I've not experienced the former, so could be wrong, but I don't believe so.
Click to expand...


Thats pretty damn extreme and not at all what I am talking about.  When I say ostracism I mean at most 10 minutes. Go sit in a room and get yourself together. When you do call me and we can talk about what happened to make you mad, act up, etc. At that point age appropriate punishment will be handed out.  If you have an exceptionally good reason you get a pass.


----------



## History

I have no problem with it now or as a child because it taught me right from wrong.. 

The people the will have a problem with spanking kids for inappropriate behavior are the ones that usually have the uncontrollable kids in the public view and can't keep them quite..

It is part of life, do good for yourself in school and at home and you will get better rewards, for instance better Christmas and Birthday Presents, Cash Allowance, ask Mom and Dad for something you want really badly.. Or the opposite if you do really bad and act inappropriately..

What is wrong with that??


----------



## Octarine

bianco said:


> SuperNanny never hits a child.



Supernanny hasn't any children of her own


----------



## beagle9

It just all depends on the person doing the spanking as I recall, where as if a person is qualified to discipline properly, and this is something that cannot be trained into a person (it has to come naturally), then the results are fantastic. Now if a person doesn't have the ability to do it right because they themselves are messed up, then Houston we have a problem. kids respond differently to different people, and they may respect one, but may not respect the other. If a kid respects you, then they will mind you, and they will accept your punishing them as being just (even if it is a good old spanking), but if they do not respect you nor do they trust you, then they will see your punishing them as abuse every time. This is why parents may need help themselves if they are having a problem with their kids, but then you have the problem of having so many idiots who are hired now in that field, and for whom don't even know what they are doing when they try and tell someone else what to do, that it is simply pathetic anymore.. ugggh.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Asclepias said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you need to do to bring about the results you want. If you want a little gang banger than don't dicipline them, and you may get your wish.
> 
> In Marine boot camp I saw brutal disipline to purge the weaknesses of many who came from a soft home - most did not make it.
> 
> If you don't disipline your child - you hate your child! Pain is a great incentive - if you use it early, you won't have to use it much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up with gang bangers. The worst of them got beat and abused constantly for any and every infraction.  It made most of them mean and turned them into bullies.  Show me a hardcore gangbanger and you will find someone with abuse in their background.
Click to expand...


I have never seen a bully who wasn't hit by his parents.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JimH52 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I were foster parents during the days when spanking was allowed.  I was president of my state association of FP when the ruling from the state came down outlawing spanking.  A lot of FP just gave it up.  We went through intensive training to teach FP different methods of discipline.
> 
> It seems to me that spanking had its place, but this is a new generation.  Many kids would rather be spanked than go through the process of consequence.  The fine line between spanking for discipline and parental abuse has taken the former off the board.
> 
> So the answer to your question is, Yes, it does work with some kids.  But No, it is no longer an option in today's society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> speak for yourself, I spank my child when necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem personally with that.  But I strongly advise you to try hard to avoid those spankings in public places.  There are folks out there that will not hesitate to call social services or other authorities if they see that happen.  Take it from someone who has seen it happen many times.  It is just the way it is.
Click to expand...


I will not call anyone.  I will *draw and cock on you!*


----------



## Jarlaxle

Wake said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias, there are two things I want you to know before we discuss this further. 1), I respect you. 2), you're OK in my book. That said, we disagree a bit on some stuff.
> 
> Physical punishment should be legal, so long as it doesn't cross any boundaries. Using a paddle or a hand on the rump is very different then slapping or punching the face, or beating, kicking punching, etc. Evolution made it so that the butt has fat on it, to make sitting more comfortable, while also making disciplining your children easier for both of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could cripple a child for life by paddling his/her butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes young kids are little demons. I was one of them. Reasoning didn't work. You couldn't reason with me, therefore, you _couldn't_ stop me. Little ones with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder can be so hyper and inattentive that only a few things will drive the message into the brain, and ensure it's remembered. And along the lines of being a hyper, evil, and intelligent brat, I soon learned that buying my love and obedience could be abused by me. Hitler did it, too. Sending me to my room did nothing, because video games. Having me stand in the corner did nothing but give me time to collect and organize my evil plans. Every little chink in my parents' armor was learned and abused, making it easy to come out ahead in bargaining.
> 
> Then the day came when it all stopped. I learned fear. After breaking something else Mom and Dad brought me into the living room, and I was notified that my butt was going to be spanked. This was new to me, because everything had been going so well. The very thought of this impending attack on my behind made me think that maybe, just maybe, my parents wouldn't lay down and take it any more. So with the bending of my body over Dad's knee, and the torture of the eternal two minutes, fear was not only learned... but remembered. Needless to say, so did respect. And with that my dreams of global domination came to an end.
> 
> If you my friend can get your children to obey you without having to spank their behinds, you are fortunate. That is rare, and was certainly not the case for my parents. Interestingly enough, we trained our puppy by scruffing her as punishment for biting people, running away, etc. She was a very loving, obedient, loyal sweetheart, and never got in trouble with the pound.
> 
> What you've mentioned about celebrating their victories and using their losses as learning opportunities is good, and I could see using that side-by-side with spanking out really bad behavior (maybe a caveat here would be to not over-celebrate, though?). If you were my parent, and I was very young, you would have to control me with spanking (give me very good reason to fear, respect, and obey you), or I'd likely burn your house down because no one's given me reason to not dare explore with matches.
> 
> Sometimes spanking is necessary and justified, and if you have reason to do so as a parent, you also have to keep it in moderation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It is NEVER necessary, it is NEVER justified, and it is NEVER the right thing to do.  Anyone doing it needs to be stopped by any means necessary up to and including lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jarl, it would go far beyond the bounds of disciplinary spanking to cause that kind of damage. I feel that's less than honest of you to say that, because of all the times I've been spanked the worst was a slightly red bottom that stung for a few minutes.
> 
> Well, you certainly have the right to an opinion. It's just extreme and unreasonable, but so long as that sentiment doesn't influence our laws that's alright. I want to understand better where this sentiment is coming from. Were you ever spanked? What were your experiences?
Click to expand...


My psychopathic father used me as a punching bag on an almost daily basis.  He cost me my health and most of my sanity.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Iceweasel said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the people I corresponded with in prison ministry were beaten severely as children.  Some went on to boot camp, all went on to prison.  The common denominator with all of them was their parents used violence as a teaching tool and it backfired.  More discipline is not what brought them around.  Love brought them around and love transformed them.
> 
> You could go to any prison and ask them if its the punishment there that will keep them from returning.  They will tell you that isn't it.   It's finding their self worth and purpose and feeling loved that will keep them from returning.
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is spanking, not beatings. Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...


Distinction without a difference.


----------



## Ringel05

Luddly Neddite said:


> I apologize that my earlier post was so unclear. I rewrote/retyped it and then didn't correct it.
> 
> I have studied this all my life but I am no where near the authority of some here. I was a child who was not expected, not supposed to survive.
> 
> Some may want to read Sanford's book, Strong At the Broken Places. Her research shows that those who were hit as children do not grow up to hit their own children.
> 
> My question is, where do people learn that hitting children is okay or even, good?



What you experienced no child should have to go through but the unfortunate reality is some do, my wife was physically abuse up until third grade when it was notice by school authorities who put a stop to the physical abuse.  The mental and emotional abuse continued up to adulthood.  Your personal experience left an indelible impression on you that appears to color your ability to differentiate spanking from harm.  This is not a condemnation of you, it's fairly normal for those in your position to see this as black and white with no room for the grey making it nearly impossible to answer your question.
I wish there was some way to show you that all spanking isn't bad and I wish that there was some way that spanking wasn't necessary with some children but it is one tool that, used appropriately, works for many (see Wake's example).  
Hopefully one way to convey the difference is, I and my brothers were spanked as a children when we did something very bad (when we deserved it), we also knew our parents loved us and the punishment was for our actions.  We feared punishment, not our parents.
It is my most sincere wish that you and those who have experienced what you have find the healing and answers you seek and that you may one day shed the anger and pain.  I found that forgiving those who have wronged me (whether they know it or not) frees me from my hurt and anger allowing me to move on.  Don't know if that would help you or not, simply offering it as an alternate option.


----------



## Iceweasel

Jarlaxle said:


> I have never seen a bully who wasn't hit by his parents.


Cool story. You met every bully on Earth.


----------



## Meister

Jarlaxle said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the people I corresponded with in prison ministry were beaten severely as children.  Some went on to boot camp, all went on to prison.  The common denominator with all of them was their parents used violence as a teaching tool and it backfired.  More discipline is not what brought them around.  Love brought them around and love transformed them.
> 
> You could go to any prison and ask them if its the punishment there that will keep them from returning.  They will tell you that isn't it.   It's finding their self worth and purpose and feeling loved that will keep them from returning.
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is spanking, not beatings. Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...


There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.


----------



## Chaussette

Meister said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is spanking, not beatings. Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Distinction without a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
Click to expand...


Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Tresha91203 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of Africans that abuse their children.  My point is that it is not the norm in African culture.  This is something Black Americans picked up from slavery. This and other bad habits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Ghana, not only do the parents spank their children, but any adult in range of the disrespectful or disobedient child. I don't presume that everyone in Ghana does, but no one objected either time I witnessed it. They are not descendents of slaves nor does their spanking of other people's children come from whites. In the villages, where I saw this, it is very rare to see a white person.  You see more whites in Acra,  but I didn't see spanking there so not sure if it is regional. I assume it is. Africa is huge with many many different cultures and languages.
Click to expand...


Sounds like there is no place where a child is safe from being hit by any adult who gets it in their head that the child needs hitting.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Jarlaxle said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could cripple a child for life by paddling his/her butt.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It is NEVER necessary, it is NEVER justified, and it is NEVER the right thing to do.  Anyone doing it needs to be stopped by any means necessary up to and including lethal force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarl, it would go far beyond the bounds of disciplinary spanking to cause that kind of damage. I feel that's less than honest of you to say that, because of all the times I've been spanked the worst was a slightly red bottom that stung for a few minutes.
> 
> Well, you certainly have the right to an opinion. It's just extreme and unreasonable, but so long as that sentiment doesn't influence our laws that's alright. I want to understand better where this sentiment is coming from. Were you ever spanked? What were your experiences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My psychopathic father used me as a punching bag on an almost daily basis.  He cost me my health and most of my sanity.
Click to expand...


Just as with rape, most people have no idea of the life-long physical effects of abuse. 

Not all scars can be seen and not all damage heals.


----------



## Montrovant

Chaussette said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
Click to expand...


Ah, so now spanking during play is cowardly, huh?  Spanking is hitting and all that....

And I wonder what, exactly, you think those who spank are afraid of?


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so now spanking during play is cowardly, huh?  Spanking is hitting and all that....
> 
> And I wonder what, exactly, you think those who spank are afraid of?
Click to expand...


Creative thinking, I'd say.  Violence is the absolutely least creative method of problem resolution there is.

A violent application is immediate, visceral and simple: "if I run into the street I'll get spanked".  The effect of a non-violent approach is not so simple.  With the physical pain no longer in the forefront dominating the mind the child is free to (and forced to) analyze what happened and why.  In fact we could add this as a much-less-obvious factor: hitting one's kids teaches those kids (by example of omission) to not think creatively.  That is, it passes up a chance, both to incite that analysis for the current event, and to demonstrate the wonder of wisdom, creative thinking, and deductive reasoning.  That opportunity should never be passed up, if one can but grasp it.

Matter of fact the simplicity of "if I run into the street I'll get spanked" could just as easily be interpreted "if I run I'll get spanked" because the child just isn't given context to ruminate with.

Seems to me those who counter that children just don't think like adults might be lacking confidence in their own children's abilities and reluctant to credit them with enough intelligence to figure it out.  I think kids are a lot smarter than some give them credit for, and no one will disagree that as newcomers to this planet they're always curious.  Take advantage of that curiosity by giving them something to think about rather than just physically feel, sez I.


----------



## Pogo

Octarine said:


> bianco said:
> 
> 
> 
> SuperNanny never hits a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supernanny hasn't any children of her own
Click to expand...


Who in the fuck is "SuperNanny"?


----------



## Pogo

Ringel05 said:


> What you experienced no child should have to go through but the unfortunate reality is some do, my wife was physically abuse up until third grade *when it was notice by school authorities who put a stop to the physical abuse*.  The mental and emotional abuse continued up to adulthood.  Your personal experience left an indelible impression on you that appears to color your ability to differentiate spanking from harm.



This might be a worthwhile tangent -- I tried to go down this process path yesterday with Wake and we didn't finish... when you say this girl (now your wife) was being physically abused and authorities put a stop to it -- how did they do that?   Presumably the adults visiting the abuse on her were not spanked as a remedy, so how did they get it stopped?

Looking for motivational cause and effects here.


----------



## Asclepias

Pogo said:


> Octarine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bianco said:
> 
> 
> 
> SuperNanny never hits a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supernanny hasn't any children of her own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who in the fuck is "SuperNanny"?
Click to expand...



She is actually pretty good.  More people should watch her show on how to raise children.


----------



## Meister

Chaussette said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

Chaussette said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
Click to expand...

Do you have children ? If so then be glad that you didn't give birth to a child that needs to be spanked sometimes or every once in a while for being bad. You probably have a child that needs to be spanked sometimes, but you have bought the coolaid the whole picture full in liberal theology, and so you want to let the government or the school system raise your child instead maybe ? Do you believe in drugs raising your child also ? Are you even fit to have a child or children umm do you think ? These are all important questions, and you should be honest with yourself about it all somehow. What works for you isn't the only tool in the box for all, so becareful of your judgement of others, especially if your not a trained physcologist or even a scholar on the subject. Abuse is one thing, and I think all know what abuse is, but disipline in the form of a spanking or a quick pop on the hand or the butt is something altogether different than a abusive situation in which people have seen and understood abuse to be.

The whole thing is part of a broader plan by government, to take control of the children in the plan, and it has worked brilliantly on the populous over the years, because we the people have drunk the coolaid of the liberal elite in this nation, and it isn't over yet.


----------



## G.T.

100% opposed to spanking children. Obedience under the threat of physical violence doesn't really sound right to me.


----------



## Tresha91203

I agree it was extreme, that was my point. It is the degree of each. Each can be taken too far. I would have much preferred the former, but would not have preferred a beating, I think. People are different, though. My twin could care less about being ostricised, but I certainly did. That is how the ostricization crossed the line from my perspective. 10 minutes would have worked for neither of us. It would be worth it for many infractions. Then, it escalates and becomes an hour ... is that the line? All I know is that I learned he uses love to control. As long as I behave as he wants (even into adulthood), we are "good." If I disagree, I don't exist. We get along well enough now, but he does not know me. That is what I learned, hide my true self to keep the family. Believe it or not, he is a good man. He was beaten, as were his 6 siblings, as a child and worked hard to never hit us so as not to repeat the cycle. In a very real way, he did. He chose another, more humane in his mind, method. When it didn't work, he doubled down on it until it did, and in my mind, crossed the line. I don't think he really saw another option and don't actually fault him for it. He feels he broke the cycle of abuse ... I am not so sure, but maybe he is right. None of his children are physical abusers so that cycle is broken. I don't and wont have children, and his other children refuse to ignore (ostricization), so maybe he succeeded after all. It just took 3 generations to break it. I don't know. 

I understand that you did not mean prolongued neglect, just as most here are not referring to the spanking of 2 generations ago. IMO, the degree of each matters. If you have to escalate your preferred method, perhaps it is time to try another. There are many forms of mild loving correction. Find the one that works for your child, and be grateful if the effective method is one you do not find distasteful. Please recognize, though, that each child is different and responds to a different method. Withdrawal definitely teaches a message ... a different one to different children. Please be conscious of degree and emotional impact. Often, words or lack of is more harmful than a swat to a certain personality.




Asclepias said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain that ostracism is one of the most powerful tools. I forgot where I picked it up but I read a book where if you did something outside of the tribal laws they acted like you did not exist or you were a ghost. It was either a NA tribe or an African tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad did that. I learned that he loves me ... sometimes, but not to count on it. It can be taken too far and be more traumatic than a swat on the butt. Its the degree of either method. A swat on the butt, lecture, hug, then done ... *or withdraw all affection until that grade comes up (9 weeks)*. I consider the latter neglect. The former, I'm not bothered about. I've not experienced the former, so could be wrong, but I don't believe so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats pretty damn extreme and not at all what I am talking about.  When I say ostracism I mean at most 10 minutes. Go sit in a room and get yourself together. When you do call me and we can talk about what happened to make you mad, act up, etc. At that point age appropriate punishment will be handed out.  If you have an exceptionally good reason you get a pass.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ringel05

Pogo said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you experienced no child should have to go through but the unfortunate reality is some do, my wife was physically abuse up until third grade *when it was notice by school authorities who put a stop to the physical abuse*.  The mental and emotional abuse continued up to adulthood.  Your personal experience left an indelible impression on you that appears to color your ability to differentiate spanking from harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a worthwhile tangent -- I tried to go down this process path yesterday with Wake and we didn't finish... when you say this girl (now your wife) was being physically abused and authorities put a stop to it -- how did they do that?   Presumably the adults visiting the abuse on her were not spanked as a remedy, so how did they get it stopped?
> 
> Looking for motivational cause and effects here.
Click to expand...


She's never said.  Just said it stopped after the school authorities intervened but that the emotional and mental abuse was much worse. 
My assumption is her parents (this I know) were thought of highly at work and among friends so anything that might mar said public image they would have eschewed.  Their public image was more important to them than anything.


----------



## beagle9

G.T. said:


> 100% opposed to spanking children. Obedience under the threat of physical violence doesn't really sound right to me.


A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.

Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?


----------



## G.T.

beagle9 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% opposed to spanking children. Obedience under the threat of physical violence doesn't really sound right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
Click to expand...


Yes, I would construe that as abuse.

Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault. 

People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....

and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids? 

Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?


----------



## Pogo

Ringel05 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you experienced no child should have to go through but the unfortunate reality is some do, my wife was physically abuse up until third grade *when it was notice by school authorities who put a stop to the physical abuse*.  The mental and emotional abuse continued up to adulthood.  Your personal experience left an indelible impression on you that appears to color your ability to differentiate spanking from harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a worthwhile tangent -- I tried to go down this process path yesterday with Wake and we didn't finish... when you say this girl (now your wife) was being physically abused and authorities put a stop to it -- how did they do that?   Presumably the adults visiting the abuse on her were not spanked as a remedy, so how did they get it stopped?
> 
> Looking for motivational cause and effects here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's never said.  Just said it stopped after the school authorities intervened but that the emotional and mental abuse was much worse.
> My assumption is her parents (this I know) were thought of highly at work and among friends so anything that might mar said public image they would have eschewed.  Their public image was more important to them than anything.
Click to expand...


Assuming that is the way it went down, and it's reasonable to assume, that makes the case that the non-punitive method of social pressure was effective.  That's why I keep coming back to cultural mores rather than punitive ones like laws or spanking.

In other words, you and I and the posters here don't walk down the street hitting people.  Do we not do that because the law would lock us up, or do we not do that because it's simply the wrong thing to do within our cultural mores?  Seems obvious which motivation is the more effective.


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have children ? If so then be glad that you didn't give birth to a child that needs to be spanked sometimes or every once in a while for being bad. You probably have a child that needs to be spanked sometimes, but you have bought the coolaid the whole picture full in liberal theology, and so you want to let the government or the school system raise your child instead maybe ? Do you believe in drugs raising your child also ? Are you even fit to have a child or children umm do you think ? These are all important questions, and you should be honest with yourself about it all somehow. What works for you isn't the only tool in the box for all, so becareful of your judgement of others, especially if your not a trained physcologist or even a scholar on the subject. Abuse is one thing, and I think all know what abuse is, but disipline in the form of a spanking or a quick pop on the hand or the butt is something altogether different than a abusive situation in which people have seen and understood abuse to be.
> 
> The whole thing is part of a broader plan by government, to take control of the children in the plan, and it has worked brilliantly on the populous over the years, because we the people have drunk the coolaid of the liberal elite in this nation, and it isn't over yet.
Click to expand...


Oh Jesus Christ on a Cracker... 

This is not a political topic.  Close your comic book before the pages get all stuck together.


----------



## Pogo

G.T. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% opposed to spanking children. Obedience under the threat of physical violence doesn't really sound right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I would construe that as abuse.
> 
> Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault.
> 
> People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....
> 
> and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids?
> 
> Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?
Click to expand...


Seems to me that anecdote is all about personal power and not at all about behavioural lessons.  BIG difference.  And not the first time they've been conflated here.


----------



## G.T.

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would construe that as abuse.
> 
> Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault.
> 
> People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....
> 
> and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids?
> 
> Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me that anecdote is all about personal power and not at all about behavioural lessons.  BIG difference.  And not the first time they've been conflated here.
Click to expand...


Egg sack, leigh.


----------



## percysunshine

Pogo said:


> Octarine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bianco said:
> 
> 
> 
> SuperNanny never hits a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supernanny hasn't any children of her own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who in the fuck is "SuperNanny"?
Click to expand...


I believe it is (ex) Mayor Bloomberg. Spankings start on the 21st ounce of Pepsi.


----------



## Chaussette

Montrovant said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so now spanking during play is cowardly, huh?  Spanking is hitting and all that....
> 
> And I wonder what, exactly, you think those who spank are afraid of?
Click to expand...

People who hit children are just not intelligent enough to find another. And cowards.


----------



## Chaussette

beagle9 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> There very much is a difference.  Yes, a spanking can go too far to where it is a beating.  But, there are spankings that aren't beatings that gets the attention of a child and goes no further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have children ? If so then be glad that you didn't give birth to a child that needs to be spanked sometimes or every once in a while for being bad. You probably have a child that needs to be spanked sometimes, but you have bought the coolaid the whole picture full in liberal theology, and so you want to let the government or the school system raise your child instead maybe ? Do you believe in drugs raising your child also ? Are you even fit to have a child or children umm do you think ? These are all important questions, and you should be honest with yourself about it all somehow. What works for you isn't the only tool in the box for all, so becareful of your judgement of others, especially if your not a trained physcologist or even a scholar on the subject. Abuse is one thing, and I think all know what abuse is, but disipline in the form of a spanking or a quick pop on the hand or the butt is something altogether different than a abusive situation in which people have seen and understood abuse to be.
> 
> The whole thing is part of a broader plan by government, to take control of the children in the plan, and it has worked brilliantly on the populous over the years, because we the people have drunk the coolaid of the liberal elite in this nation, and it isn't over yet.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have children, raised them without ever hitting them. Hitting children is the coward's way.


----------



## Montrovant

Chaussette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is hitting. Hitting children is cowardly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so now spanking during play is cowardly, huh?  Spanking is hitting and all that....
> 
> And I wonder what, exactly, you think those who spank are afraid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who hit children are just not intelligent enough to find another. And cowards.
Click to expand...


Multiple times you've said hitting is hitting, yet have ignored my repeated questions about hitting as part of play.

Now you are calling those who hit children cowards, without explaining what those people are afraid of that makes them cowards.  Nor have you explained how, if hitting is hitting is hitting, someone who hits a child as part of playing is a coward.

I could as easily say someone who consistently resorts to insults rather than discussion, as you have done, isn't intelligent enough to debate a subject.

There's nothing wrong with being opposed to spanking, but you have done little to discuss the subject.


----------



## Jarlaxle

beagle9 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% opposed to spanking children. Obedience under the threat of physical violence doesn't really sound right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Probably aggravated assault.  She would have been entirely justified to take a baseball bat to her psychotic mother.


----------



## beagle9

G.T. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% opposed to spanking children. Obedience under the threat of physical violence doesn't really sound right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I would construe that as abuse.
> 
> Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault.
> 
> People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....
> 
> and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids?
> 
> Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?
Click to expand...

You say knocked out cold eh, and her mother hit her like a boxer eh, but that is the way you must play this now isn't it ?  In fact she didn't knock her daughter out cold (your words), but instead she slapped her pretty hard. Not sure if you know how kids speak about things, but it is a favorite saying by kids or adults talking about the past, and for whom got their punishment in this way, to always say I was picking myself up off of the floor (getting bragging rights for her mom you see), and this in her opinion of a punishment that fit the offense. You must have forgot the part where she said it was the hardest her mom ever *slapped her *for being bad. A slap is not what a boxer does now is it ? You have absoluetly no proof what so ever that she would do this to her own kids as based upon her past experience in life, but you are having to play that one in your liberal fantasy mind as well. You see folks, this is the kind of person and/or people who think in these twisted ways like this, and sadly they are the kind of people that we have all listened to in this nation now. All I can say is look at this nation now, because it is totally messed up, and it keeps getting worse as the information is pumped out by these people in the ways that it is being pumped out (dishonest), but people keep on giving them an audience, and that is what they thrive on in their dishonesty for which they push.


----------



## beagle9

Jarlaxle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% opposed to spanking children. Obedience under the threat of physical violence doesn't really sound right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Probably aggravated assault.  She would have been entirely justified to take a baseball bat to her psychotic mother.
Click to expand...

Wow a baseball bat for a slap eh ? Well how about a shotgun or butcher knife, I mean don't stop with just the bat. So you advocate the kid killing her mom for her mom slapping her eh ? You are one messed up dude, and I hope you know that.


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Probably aggravated assault.  She would have been entirely justified to take a baseball bat to her psychotic mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow a baseball bat for a slap eh ? Well how about a shotgun or butcher knife, I mean don't stop with just the bat. So you advocate the kid killing her mom for her mom slapping her eh ? You are one messed up dude, and I hope you know that.
Click to expand...



That's because he was hit as a child.


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Probably aggravated assault.  She would have been entirely justified to take a baseball bat to her psychotic mother.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow a baseball bat for a slap eh ? Well how about a shotgun or butcher knife, I mean don't stop with just the bat. So you advocate the kid killing her mom for her mom slapping her eh ? You are one messed up dude, and I hope you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's because he was hit as a child.
Click to expand...


No.  It's because he was abused as a child.  I am confident most who were spanked as children would disagree with Jarlaxle's stated opinions on spanking.


----------



## Chaussette

Montrovant said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so now spanking during play is cowardly, huh?  Spanking is hitting and all that....
> 
> And I wonder what, exactly, you think those who spank are afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> People who hit children are just not intelligent enough to find another. And cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple times you've said hitting is hitting, yet have ignored my repeated questions about hitting as part of play.
> 
> Now you are calling those who hit children cowards, without explaining what those people are afraid of that makes them cowards.  Nor have you explained how, if hitting is hitting is hitting, someone who hits a child as part of playing is a coward.
> 
> I could as easily say someone who consistently resorts to insults rather than discussion, as you have done, isn't intelligent enough to debate a subject.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with being opposed to spanking, but you have done little to discuss the subject.
Click to expand...


Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.


----------



## Ringel05

Pogo said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a worthwhile tangent -- I tried to go down this process path yesterday with Wake and we didn't finish... when you say this girl (now your wife) was being physically abused and authorities put a stop to it -- how did they do that?   Presumably the adults visiting the abuse on her were not spanked as a remedy, so how did they get it stopped?
> 
> Looking for motivational cause and effects here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's never said.  Just said it stopped after the school authorities intervened but that the emotional and mental abuse was much worse.
> My assumption is her parents (this I know) were thought of highly at work and among friends so anything that might mar said public image they would have eschewed.  Their public image was more important to them than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assuming that is the way it went down, and it's reasonable to assume, that makes the case that the non-punitive method of social pressure was effective.  That's why I keep coming back to cultural mores rather than punitive ones like laws or spanking.
> 
> In other words, you and I and the posters here don't walk down the street hitting people.  Do we not do that because the law would lock us up, or do we not do that because it's simply the wrong thing to do within our cultural mores?  Seems obvious which motivation is the more effective.
Click to expand...

It's a guess on my part.  It could have well been they saw a pattern of bruises and confronted her parents with potential criminal prosecution.  I don't know and she doesn't either, she wasn't in the room during the meeting.


----------



## Wake

Some of this I just don't understand. 

If spanking is so vile, why are there so many happy, peaceful, successful, law-abiding citizens out there who have been spanked? We're not talking beatings, like getting punched, kicked, strangled, etc. Getting paddled a few times on the butt with a slim, wooden board. I never got the belt or anything beyond that. I was ruthless and out of control as a child, and spanking was the only thing that got me to stop. Sometimes you run out of options. If I hadn't been spanked, undoubtedly I'd be in jail or prison, or worse. That I know. And why is it that there are so many people who were paddled that say they'd do the same with their own little ones? Oh, now we can't even yell at them to stop? What is next, you're not allowed to raise your voice or deprive them of their freedoms by sending them to their rooms or to the corner? See, this is one of those aspects of liberalism that just makes me think they're ****ing nuts. No seriously. I'm an atheist. Not a conservative. A relatively level-headed guy. This kind of bunk just makes me go "WHAT?!" ...speaking of atheism, aren't there some Christians here who refuse to spank their children? What do they think of Proverbs 13:24?

I got spanked when I tried to kill or maim stuff. It got me to stop. I haven't been in trouble with the law, because of behavioral conditioning.


----------



## Montrovant

Chaussette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who hit children are just not intelligent enough to find another. And cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple times you've said hitting is hitting, yet have ignored my repeated questions about hitting as part of play.
> 
> Now you are calling those who hit children cowards, without explaining what those people are afraid of that makes them cowards.  Nor have you explained how, if hitting is hitting is hitting, someone who hits a child as part of playing is a coward.
> 
> I could as easily say someone who consistently resorts to insults rather than discussion, as you have done, isn't intelligent enough to debate a subject.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with being opposed to spanking, but you have done little to discuss the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.
Click to expand...


So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting?  That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done.  It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?  

I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of.  When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> Some of this I just don't understand.
> 
> If spanking is so vile, why are there so many happy, peaceful, successful, law-abiding citizens out there who have been spanked? We're not talking beatings, like getting punched, kicked, strangled, etc. Getting paddled a few times on the butt with a slim, wooden board. I never got the belt or anything beyond that. I was ruthless and out of control as a child, and spanking was the only thing that got me to stop. Sometimes you run out of options. If I hadn't been spanked, undoubtedly I'd be in jail or prison, or worse. That I know. And why is it that there are so many people who were paddled that say they'd do the same with their own little ones? Oh, now we can't even yell at them to stop? What is next, you're not allowed to raise your voice or deprive them of their freedoms by sending them to their rooms or to the corner? See, this is one of those aspects of liberalism that just makes me think they're ****ing nuts. No seriously. I'm an atheist. Not a conservative. A relatively level-headed guy. This kind of bunk just makes me go "WHAT?!" ...speaking of atheism, aren't there some Christians here who refuse to spank their children? What do they think of Proverbs 13:24?
> 
> I got spanked when I tried to kill or maim stuff. It got me to stop. I haven't been in trouble with the law, because of behavioral conditioning.



We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.

Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc?  Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?

Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place?   What was the objective?

And I think the last query that was left over was: are you saying that the proper remedy for ADHD is violence?


Interesting that you want to turn this into something political now too...


----------



## Wake

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this I just don't understand.
> 
> If spanking is so vile, why are there so many happy, peaceful, successful, law-abiding citizens out there who have been spanked? We're not talking beatings, like getting punched, kicked, strangled, etc. Getting paddled a few times on the butt with a slim, wooden board. I never got the belt or anything beyond that. I was ruthless and out of control as a child, and spanking was the only thing that got me to stop. Sometimes you run out of options. If I hadn't been spanked, undoubtedly I'd be in jail or prison, or worse. That I know. And why is it that there are so many people who were paddled that say they'd do the same with their own little ones? Oh, now we can't even yell at them to stop? What is next, you're not allowed to raise your voice or deprive them of their freedoms by sending them to their rooms or to the corner? See, this is one of those aspects of liberalism that just makes me think they're ****ing nuts. No seriously. I'm an atheist. Not a conservative. A relatively level-headed guy. This kind of bunk just makes me go "WHAT?!" ...speaking of atheism, aren't there some Christians here who refuse to spank their children? What do they think of Proverbs 13:24?
> 
> I got spanked when I tried to kill or maim stuff. It got me to stop. I haven't been in trouble with the law, because of behavioral conditioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.
> 
> Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc?  Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?
> 
> Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place?   What was the objective?
> 
> And I think the last query that was left over was: are you saying that the proper remedy for ADHD is violence?
> 
> 
> Interesting that you want to turn this into something political now too...
Click to expand...


Beyond spanking it out of me to get it to stop, the only other thing to stop me would be law enforcement. Children can be ruthless, snotty, entitled, belligerent, immature, violent, you name it. Like dictators. Why did I do those things? Hell, I don't even know. I was wild and wanted whatever the hell I wanted, and no one would dare stop me. Someone had to make it known that this kind of bad behavior was absolutely unacceptable, Pogo. 

This issue becomes political when people are trying to prevent other people from spanking their own children. It has always been political for that reason.

As for the last part, it kind of irked me a bit. No, I don't think the remedy for ADHD is violence. Spanking isn't violence. Beating or stabbing someone is violence. People need to make the distinction between the two. In my opinion, the proper remedy for ADHD is the right medication, because it helps to correct the chemical imbalances in the brain. Spanking is an acceptable remedy for knowingly bad behavior, and wild/semi-conscious violent behavior. I wasn't treated with ADHD meds while I was spanked, but spanking certainly helped me learn good and quick that setting the house on fire with lighter fluid wasn't acceptable, etc.


----------



## beagle9

Wake said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this I just don't understand.
> 
> If spanking is so vile, why are there so many happy, peaceful, successful, law-abiding citizens out there who have been spanked? We're not talking beatings, like getting punched, kicked, strangled, etc. Getting paddled a few times on the butt with a slim, wooden board. I never got the belt or anything beyond that. I was ruthless and out of control as a child, and spanking was the only thing that got me to stop. Sometimes you run out of options. If I hadn't been spanked, undoubtedly I'd be in jail or prison, or worse. That I know. And why is it that there are so many people who were paddled that say they'd do the same with their own little ones? Oh, now we can't even yell at them to stop? What is next, you're not allowed to raise your voice or deprive them of their freedoms by sending them to their rooms or to the corner? See, this is one of those aspects of liberalism that just makes me think they're ****ing nuts. No seriously. I'm an atheist. Not a conservative. A relatively level-headed guy. This kind of bunk just makes me go "WHAT?!" ...speaking of atheism, aren't there some Christians here who refuse to spank their children? What do they think of Proverbs 13:24?
> 
> I got spanked when I tried to kill or maim stuff. It got me to stop. I haven't been in trouble with the law, because of behavioral conditioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.
> 
> Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc?  Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?
> 
> Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place?   What was the objective?
> 
> And I think the last query that was left over was: are you saying that the proper remedy for ADHD is violence?
> 
> 
> Interesting that you want to turn this into something political now too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beyond spanking it out of me to get it to stop, the only other thing to stop me would be law enforcement. Children can be ruthless, snotty, entitled, belligerent, immature, violent, you name it. Like dictators. Why did I do those things? Hell, I don't even know. I was wild and wanted whatever the hell I wanted, and no one would dare stop me. Someone had to make it know that this kind of bad behavior was absolutely unacceptable, Pogo.
> 
> This issue becomes political when people are trying to prevent other people from spanking their own children. It has always been political for that reason.
> 
> As for the last part, it kind of irked me a bit. No, I don't think the remedy for ADHD is violence. Spanking isn't violence. Beating or stabbing someone is violence. People need to make the distinction between the two. In my opinion, the proper remedy for ADHD is the right medication, because it helps to correct the chemical imbalances in the brain. Spanking is an acceptable remedy for knowingly bad behavior, and wild/semi-conscious violent behavior. I wasn't treated with ADHD meds while I was spanked, but spanking certainly helped me learn good and quick that setting the house on fire with lighter fluid wasn't acceptable, etc.
Click to expand...

Man, my mom use to make us pick her a switch, and so you picked the smallest one you could find. Problem was is that the smallest ones were the ones that hurt the most.  The bigger ones would make your mom take it easy on you, but them smaller ones yeeouch. My dad used the belt, and he knew how to use it to. I use my athoritive voice to get the attention and results in that way for my kid. It worked purty well for me. Now I would spank if I had to, but I just didn't have to thank goodness.


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this I just don't understand.
> 
> If spanking is so vile, why are there so many happy, peaceful, successful, law-abiding citizens out there who have been spanked? We're not talking beatings, like getting punched, kicked, strangled, etc. Getting paddled a few times on the butt with a slim, wooden board. I never got the belt or anything beyond that. I was ruthless and out of control as a child, and spanking was the only thing that got me to stop. Sometimes you run out of options. If I hadn't been spanked, undoubtedly I'd be in jail or prison, or worse. That I know. And why is it that there are so many people who were paddled that say they'd do the same with their own little ones? Oh, now we can't even yell at them to stop? What is next, you're not allowed to raise your voice or deprive them of their freedoms by sending them to their rooms or to the corner? See, this is one of those aspects of liberalism that just makes me think they're ****ing nuts. No seriously. I'm an atheist. Not a conservative. A relatively level-headed guy. This kind of bunk just makes me go "WHAT?!" ...speaking of atheism, aren't there some Christians here who refuse to spank their children? What do they think of Proverbs 13:24?
> 
> I got spanked when I tried to kill or maim stuff. It got me to stop. I haven't been in trouble with the law, because of behavioral conditioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.
> 
> Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc?  Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?
> 
> Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place?   What was the objective?
> 
> And I think the last query that was left over was: are you saying that the proper remedy for ADHD is violence?
> 
> 
> Interesting that you want to turn this into something political now too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beyond spanking it out of me to get it to stop, the only other thing to stop me would be law enforcement. Children can be ruthless, snotty, entitled, belligerent, immature, violent, you name it. Like dictators. Why did I do those things? Hell, I don't even know. I was wild and wanted whatever the hell I wanted, and no one would dare stop me. Someone had to make it known that this kind of bad behavior was absolutely unacceptable, Pogo.
> 
> This issue becomes political when people are trying to prevent other people from spanking their own children. It has always been political for that reason.
> 
> As for the last part, it kind of irked me a bit. No, I don't think the remedy for ADHD is violence. Spanking isn't violence. Beating or stabbing someone is violence. People need to make the distinction between the two. In my opinion, the proper remedy for ADHD is the right medication, because it helps to correct the chemical imbalances in the brain. Spanking is an acceptable remedy for knowingly bad behavior, and wild/semi-conscious violent behavior. I wasn't treated with ADHD meds while I was spanked, but spanking certainly helped me learn good and quick that setting the house on fire with lighter fluid wasn't acceptable, etc.
Click to expand...


What I was really trying to get at there is your reasoning for starting that behaviour in the first place -- something a bit more detailed than "I was wild" -- what exactly was the _objective _in your mind, the expected _return_?

Overall it seems you're saying you feel ADHD should be remedied with medication, yet in your own case it was remedied with violence.  I'm trying to get at the process of how that evolved: how violence brings about a *voluntary *change in behaviour.  Obviously you're an adult now and you're not refraining from these things on account of your parents threatening a spanking.  There's kind of a missing link there.  What I'm searching for is the bridge that got you from there to here.

And yes I'm using "violence" in a broad sense -- for this purpose any physical contact intended to cause discomfort no matter to what degree.  Splitting hairs over where the line is doesn't seem useful at this point.  "Corporal punishment" if you like.

By "political" I referred to "this is one of those aspects of liberalism that just makes me think they're ****ing nuts."  I for one have already dismissed the idea of regulation by law, and _I did so on the basis of liberalism_ so that just doesn't add up, and more to the point it seems to want to walk this topic into the political arena where everybody gets a nice blue or red uniform, which is useless.  This is not a political issue anyway; it's sociological.  The question is not, and should not be, whether anti-spanking laws should exist or be built up.  The question as the OP put it is, really, "does it work?".  That has nothing to do with Liberals or Conservatives or Whigs or anything else.


----------



## OnePercenter

Yes


----------



## Chaussette

Montrovant said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple times you've said hitting is hitting, yet have ignored my repeated questions about hitting as part of play.
> 
> Now you are calling those who hit children cowards, without explaining what those people are afraid of that makes them cowards.  Nor have you explained how, if hitting is hitting is hitting, someone who hits a child as part of playing is a coward.
> 
> I could as easily say someone who consistently resorts to insults rather than discussion, as you have done, isn't intelligent enough to debate a subject.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with being opposed to spanking, but you have done little to discuss the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting?  That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done.  It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?
> 
> I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of.  When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?
Click to expand...

You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.


----------



## G.T.

beagle9 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little story my daughter just told me about her friend and the encounter she had with her mom back in the day. Her friend began getting older as a teen ager, and she bagn hanging with the wrong crowd and such, as well as being influenced in the wrong ways also, so of course she bagn to get tougher and tougher, and more unruley as the days went by. Finally it came to a climax one day, where the teen called her mom a physcopathic B. The teen friend of my daughter said to her that it was the last time she ever tried that one, because all she remembers is picking herself up off of the floor after that burst of verbal outrage. She told my daughter that it was the hardest slap she thinks she ever got for being bad like that. She also told my daughter that till this very day, she don't mess with her mom like that anymore. The teenager now turned woman is 32years old, has three children of her own (2) boy's and one girl, and they are all doing great in their lives. She still, and will always love her mother and father is what she says, but she won't try her mom like that ever again.
> 
> Sad it had to come to that, but that is what happened in that incident. Worked for her and the teen girl in the situation at the time, but it could be construed by another as abuse, but would they be right on that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would construe that as abuse.
> 
> Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault.
> 
> People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....
> 
> and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids?
> 
> Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say knocked out cold eh, and her mother hit her like a boxer eh, but that is the way you must play this now isn't it ?  In fact she didn't knock her daughter out cold (your words), but instead she slapped her pretty hard. Not sure if you know how kids speak about things, but it is a favorite saying by kids or adults talking about the past, and for whom got their punishment in this way, to always say I was picking myself up off of the floor (getting bragging rights for her mom you see), and this in her opinion of a punishment that fit the offense. You must have forgot the part where she said it was the hardest her mom ever *slapped her *for being bad. A slap is not what a boxer does now is it ? You have absoluetly no proof what so ever that she would do this to her own kids as based upon her past experience in life, but you are having to play that one in your liberal fantasy mind as well. You see folks, this is the kind of person and/or people who think in these twisted ways like this, and sadly they are the kind of people that we have all listened to in this nation now. All I can say is look at this nation now, because it is totally messed up, and it keeps getting worse as the information is pumped out by these people in the ways that it is being pumped out (dishonest), but people keep on giving them an audience, and that is what they thrive on in their dishonesty for which they push.
Click to expand...


----------



## BobPlumb

Chaussette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting?  That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done.  It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?
> 
> I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of.  When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.
Click to expand...


Football!


----------



## oldfart

Pogo said:


> We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.
> 
> Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc?  Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?
> 
> Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place?   What was the objective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond spanking it out of me to get it to stop, the only other thing to stop me would be law enforcement. Children can be ruthless, snotty, entitled, belligerent, immature, violent, you name it. Like dictators. Why did I do those things? Hell, I don't even know. I was wild and wanted whatever the hell I wanted, and no one would dare stop me. Someone had to make it known that this kind of bad behavior was absolutely unacceptable, Pogo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I was really trying to get at there is your reasoning for starting that behaviour in the first place -- something a bit more detailed than "I was wild" -- what exactly was the _objective _in your mind, the expected _return_?.....
> 
> I'm trying to get at the process of how that evolved: how violence brings about a *voluntary *change in behaviour.  Obviously you're an adult now and you're not refraining from these things on account of your parents threatening a spanking.  There's kind of a missing link there.  What I'm searching for is the bridge that got you from there to here.
Click to expand...


Please thicken the Viennese accent, polish your spectacles, and re-light the pipe.  You are asking how the transition from Kohlberg's Stage one (avoidance of punishment) to stage 2 (egocentric behavior) is accomplished.  It is the progression from "How do I avoid punishment?" to "What's in it for me?"  

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kohlberg's work has been subjected to a lot of criticism and modification, but remains the basis if theories of moral development and research in the area.  

My answer would be that in most cases there is a parallel development as small children learn to manipulate those around them, especially parents, to get what they want; and on the part of parents who transition from negative reinforcement to positive reinforcement.  It's a dance and the dance is more important to understanding than the individual dancers.  

I would further comment that Kohlberg's stage 1 is a process of demands, for what the child wants and for what the parent wants.  Sometimes this becomes a power struggle and the conflict devolves into a demand for obedience met by an insistence on autonomy (Terrible Twos!).  The two most common resolution devices are violence or the threat of violence (especially in matters involving danger to safety) and negotiation.  A history of successful negotiation ushers in stage 2.  

A lot of developmental psychology goes into this transition.  Emotional self-control is a big factor for the child.  Initially the child who doesn't get what they want inevitably throws a temper tantrum.  When sufficient violence is the response, eventually the tantrum ceases; but the child has not learned much about self-control.  If the child gets what they want as a result of the tantrum, the behavior is reinforced and the child has learned an effective tactic for manipulating parents.  The real purpose of time out is to wait out and short circuit the adrenaline rush that goes with the tantrum and provide an opportunity to talk about why tantrums will not work and what alternatives the child has in getting what they want.  

It can get pretty complicated.  Any punishment is attention, and runs the risk of being perceived by the child as a "win" if they feel neglected and want more attention paid to them.  A bit later in life, the child will try the same thing, only the approval sought is not the parents, it is others such as siblings and playmates.  Again, this kind of behavior is best addressed after separating the child from the audience.  

Successful parents usually have no doctrinaire overarching strategy, they make it up as they go along, rely on their intuition, and add to their toolkit as they can.  Absolutes are for boundary conditions (health and safety, avoiding perverse incentives, acting out fundamentally dysfunctional relationships) and the range of behaviors left in the acceptable range is pretty broad.  

Now isn't it time for coffee and pastry?


----------



## BobPlumb

oldfart said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.
> 
> Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc?  Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?
> 
> Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place?   What was the objective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond spanking it out of me to get it to stop, the only other thing to stop me would be law enforcement. Children can be ruthless, snotty, entitled, belligerent, immature, violent, you name it. Like dictators. Why did I do those things? Hell, I don't even know. I was wild and wanted whatever the hell I wanted, and no one would dare stop me. Someone had to make it known that this kind of bad behavior was absolutely unacceptable, Pogo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I was really trying to get at there is your reasoning for starting that behaviour in the first place -- something a bit more detailed than "I was wild" -- what exactly was the _objective _in your mind, the expected _return_?.....
> 
> I'm trying to get at the process of how that evolved: how violence brings about a *voluntary *change in behaviour.  Obviously you're an adult now and you're not refraining from these things on account of your parents threatening a spanking.  There's kind of a missing link there.  What I'm searching for is the bridge that got you from there to here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please thicken the Viennese accent, polish your spectacles, and re-light the pipe.  You are asking how the transition from Kohlberg's Stage one (avoidance of punishment) to stage 2 (egocentric behavior) is accomplished.  It is the progression from "How do I avoid punishment?" to "What's in it for me?"
> 
> Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Kohlberg's work has been subjected to a lot of criticism and modification, but remains the basis if theories of moral development and research in the area.
> 
> My answer would be that in most cases there is a parallel development as small children learn to manipulate those around them, especially parents, to get what they want; and on the part of parents who transition from negative reinforcement to positive reinforcement.  It's a dance and the dance is more important to understanding than the individual dancers.
> 
> I would further comment that Kohlberg's stage 1 is a process of demands, for what the child wants and for what the parent wants.  Sometimes this becomes a power struggle and the conflict devolves into a demand for obedience met by an insistence on autonomy (Terrible Twos!).  The two most common resolution devices are violence or the threat of violence (especially in matters involving danger to safety) and negotiation.  A history of successful negotiation ushers in stage 2.
> 
> A lot of developmental psychology goes into this transition.  Emotional self-control is a big factor for the child.  Initially the child who doesn't get what they want inevitably throws a temper tantrum.  When sufficient violence is the response, eventually the tantrum ceases; but the child has not learned much about self-control.  If the child gets what they want as a result of the tantrum, the behavior is reinforced and the child has learned an effective tactic for manipulating parents.  The real purpose of time out is to wait out and short circuit the adrenaline rush that goes with the tantrum and provide an opportunity to talk about why tantrums will not work and what alternatives the child has in getting what they want.
> 
> It can get pretty complicated.  Any punishment is attention, and runs the risk of being perceived by the child as a "win" if they feel neglected and want more attention paid to them.  A bit later in life, the child will try the same thing, only the approval sought is not the parents, it is others such as siblings and playmates.  Again, this kind of behavior is best addressed after separating the child from the audience.
> 
> Successful parents usually have no doctrinaire overarching strategy, they make it up as they go along, rely on their intuition, and add to their toolkit as they can.  Absolutes are for boundary conditions (health and safety, avoiding perverse incentives, acting out fundamentally dysfunctional relationships) and the range of behaviors left in the acceptable range is pretty broad.
> 
> Now isn't it time for coffee and pastry?
Click to expand...


I will have a Krispy cream donut with hot chocolate.


----------



## Montrovant

Chaussette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking as a kinky sex thing between consenting adults would be ok. But I don't see how you can play with a child that involves hitting them, that's dumb. And cowardly. A coward is someone who hits people who are substantially smaller than they are. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting?  That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done.  It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?
> 
> I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of.  When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.
Click to expand...


You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.

Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?


----------



## Chaussette

Montrovant said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't see how to play with any kind of hitting?  That's too bad, but doesn't change the fact that it can and is done.  It's not hitting to hurt, but if hitting is hitting is hitting, even when you aren't trying to hurt you may as well be the most abusive batterer ever, right?
> 
> I still don't know what these supposed cowards are afraid of.  When I play with the little one, and I give her what we call spank-a-booty's, I'm being a coward?
> 
> 
> 
> You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.
> 
> Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?
Click to expand...


Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.

Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.


----------



## Montrovant

Chaussette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.
> 
> Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.
> 
> Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.
Click to expand...


Ah.  So is that the same as degree with temperature?  If you're hot, you're hot, it doesn't matter how much?

If you're hit in football, it's the same as hit when spanked, it's the same as punched by an abusive spouse?

What about if I'm giving high fives?  That's a form of hitting.  If hitting is hitting is hitting, and there is no real differentiation between kinds of hitting, then giving high fives is teaching a child to accept a warmongering nation?

Or what if I slap a table to get the attention of a child?  That's still hitting and a form of violence.  Does that teach the same lesson as a spank, and the same lesson as a belt, the same lesson as a punch?

Hey!  We need to outlaw dodgeball, that teaches hitting and violence, right?  And wrestling!  And hockey!  Baseball and basketball and soccer and lacrosse have hitting, too!  Sometimes games of tag can seem like hitting, we wouldn't want to teach any bad lessons of violence and lead our children to accept warmongering, let's get rid of those too, yes?

But of course you are right, degree doesn't matter......


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Spanking girl friends works...or it did way back when during the Reagan Administration


----------



## Pogo

Chaussette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're teaching your child that violence is part of play time. Not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.
> 
> Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.
> 
> Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't put it that directly.  But it is an aspect of the same mindset.


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Spanking girl friends works...or it did way back when during the Reagan Administration



Reagan was your girlfriend?


----------



## Montrovant

Pogo said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be assuming that any violence, however mild, is automatically bad.
> 
> Or perhaps you are just unwilling to admit you were mistaken about hitting is hitting is hitting, and that there are in fact degrees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.
> 
> Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put it that directly.  But it is an aspect of the same mindset.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  If you are unable to understand hitting as play being different from hitting to hurt, this conversation is pointless.  That says to me that you are unwilling or unable to accept that there are differing degrees.

Hitting as part of play, when no one is hurt and no one is trying to hurt, is not part of the same mindset as a warmongering nation.  They are unrelated.


----------



## beagle9

G.T. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would construe that as abuse.
> 
> Just like if it happened on the street, it would be an arrest able offense called assault.
> 
> People in these anecdotal fairy tale cases number one, have all different definitions for "turned out fine," and two - don't know everyone's deep dark secrets, behind closed doors things, to even judge turned out fine.....
> 
> and last point: She didn't turn out fine. She deems it ok to get knocked out cold by her parent - she respects her mom for it - - - - - so now she'll not feel too bad knocking out her own kids?
> 
> Did her mom "turn out fine" if she loses her temper so badly she knocks her daughter out, cold, like a boxer? That's "turned out fine," someone who will knock their kid out cold because of their bad temper?
> 
> 
> 
> You say knocked out cold eh, and her mother hit her like a boxer eh, but that is the way you must play this now isn't it ?  In fact she didn't knock her daughter out cold (your words), but instead she slapped her pretty hard. Not sure if you know how kids speak about things, but it is a favorite saying by kids or adults talking about the past, and for whom got their punishment in this way, to always say I was picking myself up off of the floor (getting bragging rights for her mom you see), and this in her opinion of a punishment that fit the offense. You must have forgot the part where she said it was the hardest her mom ever *slapped her *for being bad. A slap is not what a boxer does now is it ? You have absoluetly no proof what so ever that she would do this to her own kids as based upon her past experience in life, but you are having to play that one in your liberal fantasy mind as well. You see folks, this is the kind of person and/or people who think in these twisted ways like this, and sadly they are the kind of people that we have all listened to in this nation now. All I can say is look at this nation now, because it is totally messed up, and it keeps getting worse as the information is pumped out by these people in the ways that it is being pumped out (dishonest), but people keep on giving them an audience, and that is what they thrive on in their dishonesty for which they push.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Let me try and clarify if I can here. 

So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life.  One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!


----------



## gnarlylove

I was thinking about this just the other day. I was hit/spanked for doing things I was told not to. It may have been effective in preventing that behavior and attribute greater authority to their prohibition in the future but this method of punishment had a negative consequences. What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.

Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.

So maintaining this strategy as legitimate only seems to prevent us from realizing a common goal: reduction in violence. Thus we are less likely to quit being violent with one another. It's not like human expression must always have violence as a part--human nature  has certain tendencies but they can easily be kneaded through proper education.

But I learned violence engenders negative consequences the hard way: I have 3 kittens that do bad things on occasion like shitting every where. So I would punished them through slightly violent means, no direct hitting but soon after I realized changes in behavior etc plus they continued shitting anywhere and everywhere. So I stopped those practices immediately and it has taken a month to one of the kittens to seem relatively normal but there are still issues, I can tell. Why think a developing child is any different? If you are being hit without understanding why, it may be hard to realize it was for your own good. So you turn inward to avoid for the sake of pain instead of becoming enlightened as to why you don't do X.


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say knocked out cold eh, and her mother hit her like a boxer eh, but that is the way you must play this now isn't it ?  In fact she didn't knock her daughter out cold (your words), but instead she slapped her pretty hard. Not sure if you know how kids speak about things, but it is a favorite saying by kids or adults talking about the past, and for whom got their punishment in this way, to always say I was picking myself up off of the floor (getting bragging rights for her mom you see), and this in her opinion of a punishment that fit the offense. You must have forgot the part where she said it was the hardest her mom ever *slapped her *for being bad. A slap is not what a boxer does now is it ? You have absoluetly no proof what so ever that she would do this to her own kids as based upon her past experience in life, but you are having to play that one in your liberal fantasy mind as well. You see folks, this is the kind of person and/or people who think in these twisted ways like this, and sadly they are the kind of people that we have all listened to in this nation now. All I can say is look at this nation now, because it is totally messed up, and it keeps getting worse as the information is pumped out by these people in the ways that it is being pumped out (dishonest), but people keep on giving them an audience, and that is what they thrive on in their dishonesty for which they push.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me try and clarify if I can here.
> 
> So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life.  One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!
Click to expand...


See, that reading doesn't really make sense.

If I read correctly you're saying this girl is glad her mom stood up and took her place of authority, and you kind of imply that had the mom not done that it would have wrecked the dynamic of parent and child that should be the case -- and that she (the girl) knew that.

Well if that's the case, if the girl believes that's the proper hierarchy value (and it is), then _why attack the mom in the first place_?? 

Just doesn't add up.


----------



## Pogo

gnarlylove said:


> I was thinking about this just the other day. I was hit/spanked for doing things I was told not to. It may have been effective in preventing that behavior and attribute greater authority to their prohibition in the future but this method of punishment had a negative consequences. What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.
> 
> So maintaining this strategy as legitimate only seems to prevent us from realizing a common goal: reduction in violence. Thus we are less likely to quit being violent with one another. It's not like human expression must always have violence as a part--human nature  has certain tendencies but they can easily be kneaded through proper education.
> 
> But I learned violence engenders negative consequences the hard way: I have 3 kittens that do bad things on occasion like shitting every where. So I would punished them through slightly violent means, no direct hitting but soon after I realized changes in behavior etc plus they continued shitting anywhere and everywhere. So I stopped those practices immediately and it has taken a month to one of the kittens to seem relatively normal but there are still issues, I can tell. Why think a developing child is any different? If you are being hit without understanding why, it may be hard to realize it was for your own good. So you turn inward to avoid for the sake of pain instead of becoming enlightened as to why you don't do X.



Beautifully said.


----------



## Pogo

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children that hitting and violence is a game leads to them growing up accepting a warmongering nation with troops all over the world killing people for no real reason.
> 
> Hitting by degrees is kinda like being stupid by degrees. You're still stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put it that directly.  But it is an aspect of the same mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  If you are unable to understand hitting as play being different from hitting to hurt, this conversation is pointless.  That says to me that you are unwilling or unable to accept that there are differing degrees.
> 
> Hitting as part of play, when no one is hurt and no one is trying to hurt, is not part of the same mindset as a warmongering nation.  They are unrelated.
Click to expand...


That's not what I was comparing.  I'm comparing the concept of hitting and violence with the concept of warmongering.  They're not the same thing and one doesn't by itself lead to the other, but it is part of the same mindset that condones and values violence.


----------



## oldfart

BobPlumb said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never finished the analysis from yesterday (dons goatée, Viennese accent) about how this lesson came to be learned.
> 
> Are you saying then that had you not been spanked you would have gone down that path, ended up in jail, etc?  Are you saying that the only reason you're not down that path now is that you might get spanked?
> 
> Why did you engage in those things (that needed correction) in the first place?   What was the objective?
> 
> 
> 
> What I was really trying to get at there is your reasoning for starting that behaviour in the first place -- something a bit more detailed than "I was wild" -- what exactly was the _objective _in your mind, the expected _return_?.....
> 
> I'm trying to get at the process of how that evolved: how violence brings about a *voluntary *change in behaviour.  Obviously you're an adult now and you're not refraining from these things on account of your parents threatening a spanking.  There's kind of a missing link there.  What I'm searching for is the bridge that got you from there to here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please thicken the Viennese accent, polish your spectacles, and re-light the pipe.  You are asking how the transition from Kohlberg's Stage one (avoidance of punishment) to stage 2 (egocentric behavior) is accomplished.  It is the progression from "How do I avoid punishment?" to "What's in it for me?"
> 
> Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Kohlberg's work has been subjected to a lot of criticism and modification, but remains the basis if theories of moral development and research in the area.
> 
> My answer would be that in most cases there is a parallel development as small children learn to manipulate those around them, especially parents, to get what they want; and on the part of parents who transition from negative reinforcement to positive reinforcement.  It's a dance and the dance is more important to understanding than the individual dancers.
> 
> I would further comment that Kohlberg's stage 1 is a process of demands, for what the child wants and for what the parent wants.  Sometimes this becomes a power struggle and the conflict devolves into a demand for obedience met by an insistence on autonomy (Terrible Twos!).  The two most common resolution devices are violence or the threat of violence (especially in matters involving danger to safety) and negotiation.  A history of successful negotiation ushers in stage 2.
> 
> A lot of developmental psychology goes into this transition.  Emotional self-control is a big factor for the child.  Initially the child who doesn't get what they want inevitably throws a temper tantrum.  When sufficient violence is the response, eventually the tantrum ceases; but the child has not learned much about self-control.  If the child gets what they want as a result of the tantrum, the behavior is reinforced and the child has learned an effective tactic for manipulating parents.  The real purpose of time out is to wait out and short circuit the adrenaline rush that goes with the tantrum and provide an opportunity to talk about why tantrums will not work and what alternatives the child has in getting what they want.
> 
> It can get pretty complicated.  Any punishment is attention, and runs the risk of being perceived by the child as a "win" if they feel neglected and want more attention paid to them.  A bit later in life, the child will try the same thing, only the approval sought is not the parents, it is others such as siblings and playmates.  Again, this kind of behavior is best addressed after separating the child from the audience.
> 
> Successful parents usually have no doctrinaire overarching strategy, they make it up as they go along, rely on their intuition, and add to their toolkit as they can.  Absolutes are for boundary conditions (health and safety, avoiding perverse incentives, acting out fundamentally dysfunctional relationships) and the range of behaviors left in the acceptable range is pretty broad.
> 
> Now isn't it time for coffee and pastry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will have a Krispy cream donut with hot chocolate.
Click to expand...


Krispy Kreme?  Where!  Where!


----------



## beagle9

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try and clarify if I can here.
> 
> So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life.  One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that reading doesn't really make sense.
> 
> If I read correctly you're saying this girl is glad her mom stood up and took her place of authority, and you kind of imply that had the mom not done that it would have wrecked the dynamic of parent and child that should be the case -- and that she (the girl) knew that.
> 
> Well if that's the case, if the girl believes that's the proper hierarchy value (and it is), then _why attack the mom in the first place_??
> 
> Just doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Might not make sense to you, but for many it makes perfect sense. I had a friend that had a father and mother who never layed a hand upon him, and especially once he got to be around 16 years old. My friend was big and was no joke. He was a terror at this point to his father and mother sadly enough. He abused his family (took advantage of their meekness in life), and I saw him act out once in which made me feel sad for him and his family (mom and dad). Not sure what the answer should have been, because back then I was just 16, and I couldn't whip him. There was no phone calling going on back then either. I wish his dad could have tore his butt from limb to limb one time, but he was to meek of a person to do so, and thus stood the abuse from his son. I wish I could have torn him from limb to limb also, but I was no match for this fella. I quit hanging around him after saw what he was capable of, and what he was doing to his mom and dad. I could only hope that when I would tell someone about it, that they would know what to do, because I didn't know what to do at the time.


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try and clarify if I can here.
> 
> So you see this woman when telling her story, she uses speech that gives umph to her story - Example: " I found that I was picking myself up off of the floor", where as to her it is a bragging right in which she uses in respect to what it done for her afterwards (knocked some sense back into her, in which is another metaphore used by story tellers like her and others who had experienced such things like this also in their lives as well), and it transitioned her from a terrible situation in her life to a good situation in her life. She is now grown into adulthood, and she does love to tell about these things as being the very things that saved her in her life or so she figures. She is proud of her mom that she stood up for herself in a situation like that, and that she didn't coward down under the fear of her daughter now as a teenager, finally being able to challenge her as in some cases with even physical violence. She was glad her mom won the day that day, because she knew how bad she had become at the time, and she understood that her mom had to take action because of her supposed to be innocent young teenager for whom had become someone that was unruley, and even dangerous to the mom possibly, and her own self in life.  One good slap for her done the trick, and she braggs about it to this very day. Oh and she loves her mom, and would do anything and everything for her. It's all good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that reading doesn't really make sense.
> 
> If I read correctly you're saying this girl is glad her mom stood up and took her place of authority, and you kind of imply that had the mom not done that it would have wrecked the dynamic of parent and child that should be the case -- and that she (the girl) knew that.
> 
> Well if that's the case, if the girl believes that's the proper hierarchy value (and it is), then _why attack the mom in the first place_??
> 
> Just doesn't add up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might not make sense to you, but for many it makes perfect sense. I had a friend that had a father and mother who never layed a hand upon him, and especially once he got to be around 16 years old. My friend was big and was no joke. He was a terror at this point to his father and mother sadly enough. He abused his family (took advantage of their meekness in life), and I saw him act out once in which made me feel sad for him and his family (mom and dad). Not sure what the answer should have been, because back then I was just 16, and I couldn't whip him. There was no phone calling going on back then either. I wish his dad could have tore his butt from limb to limb one time, but he was to meek of a person to do so, and thus stood the abuse from his son. I wish I could have torn him from limb to limb also, but I was no match for this fella. I quit hanging around him after saw what he was capable of, and what he was doing to his mom and dad. I could only hope that when I would tell someone about it, that they would know what to do, because I didn't know what to do at the time.
Click to expand...


Sounds more like he was never punished and taught respect for authority.  Withholding punishment is not the same thing as not spanking. You have to teach your child boundaries and respect. You dont have to that by spanking or hitting them.


----------



## Wake

gnarlylove said:


> *What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.*



But...

...there's a problem with this assertion.

My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.


----------



## G.T.

Wake said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
Click to expand...


There's only a problem with his assertion if you, personally, are unwilling to hit your kids.

'Cuz if you're willing to hit your kids since "you turned out just fine," then no, you didn't turn out just fine but were bred with the mentality that hittin is ok thus - violence bred violence.


----------



## Asclepias

Wake said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
Click to expand...


It doesnt always turn you into a raging maniac. It may simply break your spirit or it could turn you into a mass murderer. Its proven that you do what you know and always remember you can be reprogrammed.


----------



## Wake

Asclepias said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesnt always turn you into a raging maniac. It may simply break your spirit or it could turn you into a mass murderer. Its proven that you do what you know and always remember you can be reprogrammed.
Click to expand...


It certainly broke my spirit when it came to wanting to stab other children with forks when playing tag, etc. I don't believe spanking can lead to becoming a mass murderer. A few swats on the butt when you're doing dangerous, obscene stuff typical of young children doesn't do that. Beating a child over and over, making him or her truly scared of you, and/or using verbal/emotional abuse certainly can. Let parents paddle their children a little when they misbehave. Put people in prison when they truly abuse their children. These things are not one and the same.... there is so much difference there.


----------



## Wake

G.T. said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's only a problem with his assertion if you, personally, are unwilling to hit your kids.
> 
> 'Cuz if you're willing to hit your kids since "you turned out just fine," then no, you didn't turn out just fine but were bred with the mentality that hittin is ok thus - violence bred violence.
Click to expand...


I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too. 

Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.


----------



## G.T.

Wake said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's only a problem with his assertion if you, personally, are unwilling to hit your kids.
> 
> 'Cuz if you're willing to hit your kids since "you turned out just fine," then no, you didn't turn out just fine but were bred with the mentality that hittin is ok thus - violence bred violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.
> 
> Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.
Click to expand...


All physical contact isn't bad if you enter and understand it voluntarily. Your analogy stinks. 

But physical punishment from those you trust can break a child mentally. You could say you're lucky you weren't broken, but your kids if you spanked them or their kids kids who have all been passed the norm to hit all run the risk, simply because you couldn't use your brain to develop a better way to teach. It doesn't sound responsible, it sounds like teaching that bigger/stronger = boss/authority.


----------



## gnarlylove

Wake said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
Click to expand...


I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are whipped.


----------



## Asclepias

Wake said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's only a problem with his assertion if you, personally, are unwilling to hit your kids.
> 
> 'Cuz if you're willing to hit your kids since "you turned out just fine," then no, you didn't turn out just fine but were bred with the mentality that hittin is ok thus - violence bred violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.
> 
> Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.
Click to expand...


Not speaking for anyone but I believe in the context of raising children violence is bad. Your goal is to raise the most well adjusted human being you are capable of. That human being is looking primarily at you for guidance and instruction on how to handle life problems. Football, Basketball and other sports are voluntary. self defense is necessary (from people beat as children), and war is definitely bad unless again it is in self defense from those that believe violence is the answer.


----------



## Wake

G.T. said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's only a problem with his assertion if you, personally, are unwilling to hit your kids.
> 
> 'Cuz if you're willing to hit your kids since "you turned out just fine," then no, you didn't turn out just fine but were bred with the mentality that hittin is ok thus - violence bred violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.
> 
> Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All physical contact isn't bad if you enter and understand it voluntarily. Your analogy stinks.
> 
> But physical punishment from those you trust can break a child mentally. You could say you're lucky you weren't broken, but your kids if you spanked them or their kids kids who have all been passed the norm to hit all run the risk, simply because you couldn't use your brain to develop a better way to teach. It doesn't sound responsible, it sounds like teaching that bigger/stronger = boss/authority.
Click to expand...


Spanking teaches children to love, respect, and obey their parents. Sometimes it doesn't work, but sometimes it is the only thing that will work. I think it is wrong and dishonest to try and paint spanking as some terrible thing, just as it would be wrong and dishonest to paint lack of discipline and spanking as some terrible thing. 

It is not about teaching children that bigger/stronger = boss/authority. No, it's not. Please don't believe that lie. It's about children respecting their parents. There are quite a few people who love and spank their own children, but would never allow some stranger to do it. Why? It is because spanking is done between the parent, and his or her cub; not by some other person and your child. 

I will spank my child when he or she does things that put him or her in danger, or others in danger, or when he or she does/says things that are disrespectful to the parent. You are the parent. You are not his or her little buddy. You need to remember that your child is not your equal while he or she is under your roof.

...do you allow your children to talk back to you? To whine and moan and scream and shout and curse you? If you let that happen, you're teaching your child to not fear you, and if he or she doesn't fear you, that child isn't going to fear or respect anyone else. Give an inch and they'll take a mile, my friend. If somehow non-physical discipline works for you, you're extremely fortunate.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Spanking teaches children to solve problems with violence. Great lesson.


----------



## G.T.

Wake said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.
> 
> Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All physical contact isn't bad if you enter and understand it voluntarily. Your analogy stinks.
> 
> But physical punishment from those you trust can break a child mentally. You could say you're lucky you weren't broken, but your kids if you spanked them or their kids kids who have all been passed the norm to hit all run the risk, simply because you couldn't use your brain to develop a better way to teach. It doesn't sound responsible, it sounds like teaching that bigger/stronger = boss/authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spanking teaches children to love, respect, and obey their parents. Sometimes it doesn't work, but sometimes it is the only thing that will work. I think it is wrong and dishonest to try and paint spanking as some terrible thing, just as it would be wrong and dishonest to paint lack of discipline and spanking as some terrible thing.
> 
> It is not about teaching children that bigger/stronger = boss/authority. No, it's not. Please don't believe that lie. It's about children respecting their parents. There are quite a few people who love and spank their own children, but would never allow some stranger to do it. Why? It is because spanking is done between the parent, and his or her cub; not by some other person and your child.
> 
> I will spank my child when he or she does things that put him or her in danger, or others in danger, or when he or she does/says things that are disrespectful to the parent. You are the parent. You are not his or her little buddy. You need to remember that your child is not your equal while he or she is under your roof.
> 
> ...do you allow your children to talk back to you? To whine and moan and scream and shout and curse you? If you let that happen, you're teaching your child to not fear you, and if he or she doesn't fear you, that child isn't going to fear or respect anyone else. Give an inch and they'll take a mile, my friend. If somehow non-physical discipline works for you, you're extremely fortunate.
Click to expand...


first of all, you cant call something "dishonest" when it's a matter of un-provable opinion which opinion is correct. That's just shameful. 

We disagree, and your own parents have proven that spanking you has lead you to believe that spanking is ok, and so in my opinion just like everyone who studies mental health for a professional living says: *violence bred violence*. 

Your child does not need to fear you in order to respect your authority. 

I see the challenge here is that you (in my opinion) do not know how to achieve respect for authority without the threat of physical punishment. That is a lapse in creativity, judgment, and intelligence in my opinion. It's a betrayal.


----------



## G.T.

Bumberclyde said:


> Spanking teaches children to solve problems with violence. Great lesson.



Exactly true.


----------



## Wake

gnarlylove said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What does violence engender? More violence, aggression, and anger turned inwards sometimes called depression.
> 
> Spanking is not as effective as time out in the long run because time out does not create and reinforce violent tendencies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
Click to expand...


...that bolded word.

I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either. 

What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?

My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?

Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.


----------



## G.T.

Wake said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
Click to expand...


That sounds like a child that was raised wrong. 

children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand. 

whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............

why?

Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.


----------



## Wake

G.T. said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.
> 
> children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.
> 
> whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............
> 
> why?
> 
> Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.
Click to expand...


Sometimes children's brains aren't fully deformed. They can do pretty crazy, dangerous things. Children can't always be explained the reasoning behind the rules. Some may not be fully self-conscious, either. Some don't understand, some don't want to, some don't care, and others are very aware of what you want but aren't going to obey you. 

Belting inflicts more damage than spanking. You're taking a piece of metal that's typically attacked to a length of leather, and whipping the child's butt with it. THAT can leave a mark. A thin piece of wood on a cloth-covered hiney doesn't. 

Different levels of pain, and one can cause real damage, like marks or broken skin. Of all the countless times my clothed butt's been paddled, I've never, ever had a mark or worse.


----------



## Wake

And I need to say that I have no problem with any of you guys who disagree with me on this. I have absolutely *no* doubt you all love your children, or will love them when you have them. We just disagree a bit on how to go about disciplining the little ones. If I could I'd invite all you guys here out for a beer.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Wake said:


> And I need to say that I have no problem with any of you guys who disagree with me on this. I have absolutely *no* doubt you all love your children, or will love them when you have them. We just disagree a bit on how to go about disciplining the little ones. If I could I'd invite all you guys here out for a beer.



Would we get to watch you pummel your kids?


----------



## Asclepias

Wake said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
Click to expand...


At that point its a battle of wills.  Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer.  My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.


----------



## Montrovant

Asclepias said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At that point its a battle of wills.  Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer.  My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.
Click to expand...


At that point are you not teaching the same lesson that bigger/stronger = right, though?  The only reason you are able to teach the lesson is your ability to prevent the child from doing what they want physically.


----------



## Asclepias

Montrovant said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that point its a battle of wills.  Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer.  My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At that point are you not teaching the same lesson that bigger/stronger = right, though?  The only reason you are able to teach the lesson is your ability to prevent the child from doing what they want physically.
Click to expand...


I dont think so.  She was not afraid at all and fought me the whole time.  She finally realized I was not going to stop and she had to do what I told her to do. Maybe it could have been a bigger is stronger thing but it had nothing to do with violence. If she was a meek person now I might agree with you but to this day she has no fear of anyone no matter how big they are.


----------



## Montrovant

G.T. said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.
> 
> children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.
> 
> whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............
> 
> why?
> 
> Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.
Click to expand...


Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults.  Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections.  They also tend to simply forget things very easily.

Let me give an example from just last night.  The little one I nanny was getting into bed.  She picked a story to have read and got under the covers.  She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose.  She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening.  So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one.  Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.

I didn't spank her, that's not the point.  I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished.  She cried for at least 5 minutes about it.  Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway?  Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification.  Small children are mostly about *right now*.  It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.  

Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity.  If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them?  I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks.  Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred.  Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works.  It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.

Small children *do not think like adults*.  Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true.  I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Wake said:


> And I need to say that I have no problem with any of you guys who disagree with me on this. I have absolutely *no* doubt you all love your children, or will love them when you have them. We just disagree a bit on how to go about disciplining the little ones. If I could I'd invite all you guys here out for a beer.



So your excuse for hitting your kids is that you were drunk?


----------



## G.T.

Montrovant said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.
> 
> children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.
> 
> whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............
> 
> why?
> 
> Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults.  Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections.  They also tend to simply forget things very easily.
> 
> Let me give an example from just last night.  The little one I nanny was getting into bed.  She picked a story to have read and got under the covers.  She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose.  She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening.  So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one.  Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.
> 
> I didn't spank her, that's not the point.  I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished.  She cried for at least 5 minutes about it.  Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway?  Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification.  Small children are mostly about *right now*.  It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.
> 
> Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity.  If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them?  I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks.  Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred.  Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works.  It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.
> 
> Small children *do not think like adults*.  Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true.  I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.
Click to expand...


youd be wrong in that impression


----------



## GISMYS

YES!!! "SPANK" A SMALL CHILD IF YOU LOVE HIM. If you don't you may get to visit them in jail or see them in a hospital for drinking,drugs or in the morgue. YOUR CHOICE!


----------



## chikenwing

G.T. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.
> 
> children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.
> 
> whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............
> 
> why?
> 
> Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults.  Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections.  They also tend to simply forget things very easily.
> 
> Let me give an example from just last night.  The little one I nanny was getting into bed.  She picked a story to have read and got under the covers.  She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose.  She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening.  So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one.  Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.
> 
> I didn't spank her, that's not the point.  I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished.  She cried for at least 5 minutes about it.  Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway?  Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification.  Small children are mostly about *right now*.  It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.
> 
> Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity.  If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them?  I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks.  Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred.  Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works.  It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.
> 
> Small children *do not think like adults*.  Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true.  I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
Click to expand...


you have never had a child have you?

Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.


----------



## G.T.

chikenwing said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults.  Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections.  They also tend to simply forget things very easily.
> 
> Let me give an example from just last night.  The little one I nanny was getting into bed.  She picked a story to have read and got under the covers.  She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose.  She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening.  So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one.  Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.
> 
> I didn't spank her, that's not the point.  I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished.  She cried for at least 5 minutes about it.  Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway?  Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification.  Small children are mostly about *right now*.  It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.
> 
> Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity.  If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them?  I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks.  Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred.  Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works.  It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.
> 
> Small children *do not think like adults*.  Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true.  I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have never had a child have you?
> 
> Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.
Click to expand...


Of course not all ages of children can understand everything. Thinking anyone need to reprimand that comment of mine is just churlish. 

Yes, I have a child. If I didn't, nothing has changed in my view of spanking.


----------



## Asclepias

chikenwing said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults.  Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections.  They also tend to simply forget things very easily.
> 
> Let me give an example from just last night.  The little one I nanny was getting into bed.  She picked a story to have read and got under the covers.  She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose.  She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening.  So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one.  Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.
> 
> I didn't spank her, that's not the point.  I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished.  She cried for at least 5 minutes about it.  Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway?  Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification.  Small children are mostly about *right now*.  It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.
> 
> Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity.  If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them?  I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks.  Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred.  Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works.  It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.
> 
> Small children *do not think like adults*.  Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true.  I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have never had a child have you?
> 
> Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.
Click to expand...


LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.  Remember its a battle of wills.  They want the cookie and damn everything else. You are not going to give it to them no matter what. You are playing chicken and your child should never be able to outlast you.


----------



## chikenwing

Asclepias said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have never had a child have you?
> 
> Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.
Click to expand...


You don't have children do you?


----------



## G.T.

Asclepias said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have never had a child have you?
> 
> Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.
Click to expand...


I wasn't going to say anything, but my 2 year old most certainly reasons and understands but to each his or her own children. 

Of course, she misbehaves also. But she's been taught enough to where she feels guilt immediately after and becomes sad about having been bold. No spanking necessary.


----------



## Asclepias

chikenwing said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have never had a child have you?
> 
> Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have children do you?
Click to expand...


I have 4


----------



## Asclepias

G.T. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have never had a child have you?
> 
> Reasoning with a rampaging 2 year old doesn't work very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Wait until after they stop rampaging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to say anything, but my 2 year old most certainly reasons and understands but to each his or her own children.
> 
> Of course, she misbehaves also. But she's been taught enough to where she feels guilt immediately after and becomes sad about having been bold. No spanking necessary.
Click to expand...


Kids are going to misbehave or they wouldnt be kids. They would be miniature adults.  The fact your child feels guilt proves she has enough capability to understand she going against the standards set for the family.


----------



## Montrovant

G.T. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a child that was raised wrong.
> 
> children can be explained the reasoning behind the rules, they are not idiots they do understand.
> 
> whats dishonest though is saying belting you'd never do but spanking is ok............
> 
> why?
> 
> Because if you aren't inflicting PAIN then the SPANKING is irrelevant to your process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults.  Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections.  They also tend to simply forget things very easily.
> 
> Let me give an example from just last night.  The little one I nanny was getting into bed.  She picked a story to have read and got under the covers.  She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose.  She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening.  So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one.  Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.
> 
> I didn't spank her, that's not the point.  I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished.  She cried for at least 5 minutes about it.  Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway?  Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification.  Small children are mostly about *right now*.  It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.
> 
> Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity.  If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them?  I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks.  Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred.  Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works.  It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.
> 
> Small children *do not think like adults*.  Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true.  I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
Click to expand...


You certainly seem comfortable speaking for others.


----------



## G.T.

Montrovant said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are not idiots, but neither are they adults.  Small children do not view the world the way an adult does, nor do they make the same logical or rational connections.  They also tend to simply forget things very easily.
> 
> Let me give an example from just last night.  The little one I nanny was getting into bed.  She picked a story to have read and got under the covers.  She's at an age where she wants to keep putting her fingers in her nose.  She'd also had a bit of a bad day for listening.  So when I saw her put her fingers in her nose, I made her take them out and told her if she put them back, or I had to tell her to stop doing anything else wrong, I'd stop reading the story and she could go to bed without one.  Well, 30 seconds later she has both fingers in her nose again.
> 
> I didn't spank her, that's not the point.  I put the book away and turned out her light and she had to go to sleep without the story being finished.  She cried for at least 5 minutes about it.  Now why, if she understands the consequences of her actions and if she knows she really wants a story, was she unable to stop herself from doing the wrong thing anyway?  Because she's still too small to easily get past instant gratification.  Small children are mostly about *right now*.  It can be hard for them to use any kind of long term thinking.
> 
> Now let's imagine that same type of issue, only change it to a child running into the street, or playing with an electrical socket, or some other dangerous activity.  If just reasoning with the child doesn't prevent them from going into the street, if time outs don't prevent it (or if it takes a long time for the time outs to get the lesson to stick), but if a quick spanking drives the lesson home, is it abusive to spank them?  I don't mean whip them, beat them within an inch of their life, cause massive bruising or bleeding.....just a spanking, hand to bottom, enough to hurt but only briefly and not leaving marks.  Combine it with a stern voice and an explanation for why the spank occurred.  Hopefully the explanation sticks with the child, but if not, fear of another spanking is better than the child running into the street again, if it works.  It may not work for every child and not every child will need it.
> 
> Small children *do not think like adults*.  Even if spanking is completely wrong and ineffective, this is still true.  I get the impression a number of people here expect toddlers to think the same way they do as adults, and it simply does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly seem comfortable speaking for others.
Click to expand...


yap yap yap

ya quoted my post bretheren


----------



## oldfart

Wake said:


> I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.
> 
> Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.



I recognize your point and I agree.  But for me the question is not about some pacifist ideal of non-violence; it is about what tools we use to rear children.  I realize that other posters have made a case for total non-violence, and I understand their position and support them in implementing it in their families.  You and I also agree that excessive physical punishment amounts to abuse and is to be avoided.  Where the real controversy lies, IMHO is two issues:  Is the case for one style of child rearing sufficiently strong to mandate proscription of the other?  Can children be taught self-discipline and proper behavior with less physical punishment?

My answer to the first is no.  While I have an opinion that almost every child could be successfully raised with no physical punishment, I recognize both that my opinion is not universally held, that parents should have a degree of latitude in rearing their children, and that the level of parenting skill required to do this is beyond the level many parents are exposed to in their own upbringing and education.  We are not all child development specialists (and I shudder when I consider the children of some who are!).  

My answer to the second is yes, and we should try.  Any fair reading of this thread reveals that many lessons taught us had effects different from those intended.  Nobody is claiming that rearing children is easy, but if we choose to do it it makes sense to try to do it as effectively as we can, not just to suppress anti-social behavior, but to produce youth and adults capable of being happy productive participants in society.


----------



## G.T.

oldfart said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.
> 
> Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize your point and I agree.  But for me the question is not about some pacifist ideal of non-violence; it is about what tools we use to rear children.  I realize that other posters have made a case for total non-violence, and I understand their position and support them in implementing it in their families.  You and I also agree that excessive physical punishment amounts to abuse and is to be avoided.  Where the real controversy lies, IMHO is two issues:  Is the case for one style of child rearing sufficiently strong to mandate proscription of the other?  Can children be taught self-discipline and proper behavior with less physical punishment?
> 
> My answer to the first is no.  While I have an opinion that almost every child could be successfully raised with no physical punishment, I recognize both that my opinion is not universally held, that parents should have a degree of latitude in rearing their children, and that the level of parenting skill required to do this is beyond the level many parents are exposed to in their own upbringing and education.  We are not all child development specialists (and I shudder when I consider the children of some who are!).
> 
> My answer to the second is yes, and we should try.  Any fair reading of this thread reveals that many lessons taught us had effects different from those intended.  Nobody is claiming that rearing children is easy, but if we choose to do it it makes sense to try to do it as effectively as we can, not just to suppress anti-social behavior, but to produce youth and adults capable of being happy productive participants in society.
Click to expand...


It's not the greatest excuse in the world, not being a behavior specialist. 

Your(universal your) kid is supposed to be the most important thing in the world, you'd think people could hop on google these days and learn some tricks tips and techniques before they are at the "all else is lost therefore physical punishment stage."

It's eye opening how many non violent behavioral techniques exist -


----------



## Asclepias

G.T. said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it dishonest to say that all hitting is bad, and that disciplinary spanking is violence. At the very least, quite the stretch. With all due respect I find it to be sensationally sensitive, too.
> 
> Football is violent, isn't it? Ban it, right? So's basketball. People get knocked over or pushed. All hitting is bad hitting, correct? Let's stop doing sports, because we're teaching children that violence is OK and should never be done for entertainment. Oh, and all war, too. If all hitting is bad, then all killing is the devil. And self-defense... And karate, judo, etc. All hitting/physical contact is bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize your point and I agree.  But for me the question is not about some pacifist ideal of non-violence; it is about what tools we use to rear children.  I realize that other posters have made a case for total non-violence, and I understand their position and support them in implementing it in their families.  You and I also agree that excessive physical punishment amounts to abuse and is to be avoided.  Where the real controversy lies, IMHO is two issues:  Is the case for one style of child rearing sufficiently strong to mandate proscription of the other?  Can children be taught self-discipline and proper behavior with less physical punishment?
> 
> My answer to the first is no.  While I have an opinion that almost every child could be successfully raised with no physical punishment, I recognize both that my opinion is not universally held, that parents should have a degree of latitude in rearing their children, and that the level of parenting skill required to do this is beyond the level many parents are exposed to in their own upbringing and education.  We are not all child development specialists (and I shudder when I consider the children of some who are!).
> 
> My answer to the second is yes, and we should try.  Any fair reading of this thread reveals that many lessons taught us had effects different from those intended.  Nobody is claiming that rearing children is easy, but if we choose to do it it makes sense to try to do it as effectively as we can, not just to suppress anti-social behavior, but to produce youth and adults capable of being happy productive participants in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the greatest excuse in the world, not being a behavior specialist.
> 
> Your(universal your) kid is supposed to be the most important thing in the world, you'd think people could hop on google these days and learn some tricks tips and techniques before they are at the "all else is lost therefore physical punishment stage."
> 
> It's eye opening how many non violent behavioral techniques exist -
Click to expand...


Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?


----------



## oldfart

Asclepias said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that point its a battle of wills.  Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer.  My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.
Click to expand...


OK, here is my experience.  All children at some point during ages 2--4 will test parents with a temper tantrum.  If a child never does this, check for a pulse.  It almost always happens at the most inopportune time for the parent, in a store or other public place.  The parent is likely to be a bit frazzled and the willfulness of the misbehavior pushes all of the parent's buttons.  Sound familiar?  

Giving the child what they want is a mistake.  It reinforces the bad behavior, making worse the next time and there definitely will be a next time (usually before you can get them home again!).  This is the poster child situation for thinking through and having your response ready as a parent; it's not a question of if but of when.  

The child will usually appear tired and cranky because they are.  The first thing is to know your exit strategy.  You don't want to fight this fight in public, so if you have plans or commitments, it helps if you can abort them and get the kid home.  If not, at least get them to a less public space as quickly as you can.  Note how much the child's behavior depends on the audience (for younger children it doesn't make a difference, for  older toddlers it does).  

It takes about 20 seconds for most small children to go from expectation of getting what they want to full blown anger over not getting it.  At this point the anger is the key.  The anger triggers an adrenaline rush which has several physiological effects (not the same thing is happening to you as the parent!).  Cognitive function shuts down when adrenaline hits the bloodstream, the face flushes and feels warm, and emotional responses are intensified (anger turns to rage, disappointment to abandonment, etc).  Histrionic behavior is inevitable.  

This is the point where many parents begin to play "escalato".  Willfulness triggers punishment which generates more stubborn willfulness.  This transactional "game" continues until one or both parties exhibit a total emotional collapse.  In the famous words of the classic movie "War Games", "A most peculiar game.  The only way to win is to not play."

So the optimal strategy is to wait out the adrenaline rush. For small children this usually takes only a few minutes, but with an older child who believes they can outlast the parent, it can be epic, the three or four hours mentioned.  The two components of the parental strategy are isolation (there is no audience and nothing, good or bad, happens until the child is ready to communicate without demands) and patience.  There really is no substitute for waiting the required time.  I always reminded the child that when they were ready, we would talk about what they wanted.  The inevitable reply was always some variation of "Do  I get X then?" to which the response was always "No, but we will talk about how you get what you want."  Usually the next gambit is "But I want it now!" to which the counter is "I am not going to give X to you now, but we can talk about how you can get X [or how you can get Y instead of X]".  By now you get the drill.  Never get pinned down on a specific time frame.  

My point is that this will be inconvenient for the parent and the psychological pressure to find a shortcut will be massive.  Take a deep breath and reconcile yourself that it will take what time it will take and the best way to speed it up is to act like you have all the time in the world.  

It don't claim it's easy, but it works for most people who give it a fair try.


----------



## gnarlylove

G.T. said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do see the difference between hitting and polite and firm rapping but they both involve violence. Violence is an act of aggression, and as long as the rapping is construed as punishment it is an act against the child involving intentional pain.
> 
> The way to assert dominance is by showing how you have the power to exclude the child from eating, playing with a certain toy, etc. That if they don't listen to you, they must fend for themselves which they obviously cannot do so they must listen if they wish to have basic privileges. Of course in doing so you better be sure they can learn something instead a simple reacting out of being upset and being impatient. Modern society often leaves us much less time to rear a child in a proper context.
> 
> CNA is a tough job and requires you to work when you don't expect to, so not having that time to instill corrective values must be replaced with firm hands placed on the bottom. Both are roughly effective but given time constraints one must choose the latter more often than not. This is a fault of society for demanding survival come at the cost of spending time with our child etc.
> 
> In an ideal world, any type of hand contact except to express love would not exist. Violence does not exist in a free world as violence is often the expression of removing freedom from another person or instilling fear. These are not healthy coping mechanisms or expressions to be taught ever, especially at 3-15 during development. But personally I don't have a child, I've spent my adult life taking care of adults and teens; no act of aggression on my part was warranted or ultimately effective. Although it may be effective for children, it's a black and blue mark upon a child's psyche.
Click to expand...


----------



## XPostFacto

It's good for them. It builds character. Besides, it is condoned in the Bible.


----------



## gnarlylove

Being condoned in the bible is one thing--which I respect--but its an entirely different matter for modern science to say this harms the psyche of a child.


----------



## Montrovant

G.T. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> youd be wrong in that impression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly seem comfortable speaking for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yap yap yap
> 
> ya quoted my post bretheren
Click to expand...


Yes, I did.  Unless you are multiple people, however, you are certainly not the only person I was talking about when I said 'a number of people here'.

I was also talking about an earlier post of yours where you said it is dishonest for someone to say they would never use a belt but will spank.  I would never use a belt on the girl I nanny, but I have spanked her on occasion.  So, unless you feel you are capable of speaking for me, it is not dishonest for me to say that, because it is true.

Once again, there are degrees in almost all things.  There is a difference between a spank and hitting with a belt.  That you may dismiss this difference does not mean it does not exist or that others cannot find it an important difference.


----------



## oldfart

Asclepias said:


> Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?



America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.


----------



## Asclepias

oldfart said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
Click to expand...


If at all possible people should take a course on raising children.  No one is going to be an expert unless their parents were.  I always live by the motto "If you know better shouldn't you do better?"


----------



## Bumberclyde

Asclepias said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If at all possible people should take a course on raising children.  No one is going to be an expert unless their parents were.  I always live by the motto "If you know better shouldn't you do better?"
Click to expand...


Don't black folks give their children a whuppin' on a regular basis?


----------



## beagle9

Wake said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...
> 
> ...there's a problem with this assertion.
> 
> My existence. I was spanked quite a bit. Yet, I am a very happy, caring, gentle, loving CNA/caregiver. My very job is caring for people. Since being spanked and growing up, I've never been violent, so...? It just seems a bit wrong when that assertion is completely unable to reconcile my being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
Click to expand...

Major problem in this nation right now, and it's getting worse. I have another friend for whom I always considered a real cool and tough guy once in my life, and him and his wife gave birth to even a tougher child than he was. For years everything was ok, and the young son seemed like a great kid in the perfect family. The next thing I hear, is that this kid is terrorizing (physically & verbally abusing) his parents. I thought what in the H. E. double hockey sticks is going on now. They had to actually call the law on their own son, and get him arrested finally. This was after he whipped his dad and slapped his mom one time to many. I couldn't believe it, but there it was for all to witness when young teens go bad in this way. 

Now it could have been from a huge number of factors involved, but all I know is that he was a nice kid once, and they had a nice family once, and then boom, boom, out went the lights. I was surprised that this feller could take his dad like that, but he had become a good size feller 230, and he could bench press around 300. I know his dad disciplined him in a normal manor when coming up, and also treated him great as well (gave him many things including their love and affection), but this cat got involved in the wrong crowd, and it all began to change quite fast afterwards.

When good kids go bad, now that would be a great reality show I think, because the truth needs to be told, instead of all this goody, goody, feel good anti spanking talk that goes on here, and especially upon a serious problem that is now going on in this nation. Blame the parents is the theme here it seems, and that isn't cutting it all the way or telling the whole story as it is these days. Complicated issue, and there are many, many, factors involved, but not so many that this nation can't identify those factors if we all look hard enough at them.


----------



## The Rabbi

It's like asking whether penicillin is effective.  The answer is yes, in the right dose under the right circumstance.
My parents never spanked me.  It was a mistake.  I grew up undisciplined and lacking respect.  With my kids, I spanked them rarely and only for very clear reasons.  They are two very wonderful people today.  It takes wisdom to know when to apply it and when not.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Asclepias said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you, I was spanked often and am also a CNA caregiver for 4 years. I tried to be careful with my language and denote tendencies, not necessities. I said we can knead out problems through education whether its self-education or some school environment. But I think it's clear what tendencies emerge for a majority of people who are *whipped*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At that point its a battle of wills.  Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer.  My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.
Click to expand...


My wife simply went out her bedroom window.


----------



## Jarlaxle

XPostFacto said:


> It's good for them. It builds character. Besides, it is condoned in the Bible.



So is selling children into slavery, killing anyone who works on the Sabbath, and many other vile things.


----------



## Asclepias

Jarlaxle said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that bolded word.
> 
> I don't believe in whipping children. Or belting. Or whupping. Or kicking, punching, or beating. A thin paddle to swat the butt a bit. NOT swinging hard like you're aiming to break a melon, either.
> 
> What happens when the child *will not* listen to or obey you? When he's kicking and punching you because he doesn't fear you? When she doesn't give a damn about anything you say or command? What happens when he stabs or hits your other child, or breaks your other child's tooth out? What's gonna drive home the message that it's NOT ok? What happens when your child gives you the "screw you" look when you say "go to your room", and then goes somewhere else? What happens when EVERY other option short of sending him to jail doesn't work?
> 
> My friend, what do you do when your child doesn't fear you, and thinks him or herself the parent... over you? How do you prove that you are sovereign over your cub?
> 
> Talking? Pleading? Bargaining? Begging? Child don't care who you are. He thinks you can take a hike. She don't fear you. He owns you. Can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that point its a battle of wills.  Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer.  My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My wife simply went out her bedroom window.
Click to expand...


Her parents should have thought of that before placing her somewhere she would have access to climb out a window. She must be something else being able to climb out of a window at 3 years of age.


----------



## FA_Q2

oldfart said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
Click to expand...


Youre kidding right?

There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.

If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.


----------



## G.T.

FA_Q2 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
Click to expand...


I thought I was on acid....

but a person with faq in their name just defended that people ask for help. 

I just found that funny.


----------



## FA_Q2

G.T. said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I was on acid....
> 
> but a person with faq in their name just defended that people ask for help.
> 
> I just found that funny.
Click to expand...


lol.  

 You forgot the 2 in the name though.  It is an old phonetic used in the original message boards a LONG time ago.

Pronounce the letters and you will get it.


----------



## oldfart

FA_Q2 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
Click to expand...


Not kidding.  But you are reminding me that most of America is different from where my kids were reared, a third world country known as Mississippi.  It's a class and culture issue.  It's like the old demographers joke about West Virginia.  Seriously, in Appalachia severe physical punishment is common in many families, as is a pattern of young men taking it until they can whup their father, after which they normally leave the household and often the state.  

My students reaction to self-help books would have been ask for wine and cheese while reading the book.  If you suggested they could benefit from any form of psychological help, you were accusing them "of being crazy".  This is clearly a different set of people from those who consider analysis a form of recreation.  

I'll spot you that many well educated Americans living in comfortable middle class communities consume millions of self-help books and consider treatment for mental and behavior problems as a necessary facet of health care without stigma.  

But there is another America out there too.  The stigma is real, even if it's not apparent in your neighborhood.


----------



## Asclepias

FA_Q2 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people have come to me on tips on how to train their dogs but only 2 people have ever asked me on tips about training children despite my wife and I always getting compliments on our children's behavior.  Maybe its a reluctance to admit there is a better way than what they currently employ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
Click to expand...


People tend to talk about what *they* do with their children instead of asking experts or people that have well behaved, well performing kids what works best. People will comment unsolicited on how great your kids are but rarely do they ask for tips or what specifically you do. There is definitely a stigma still on asking for help with raising children or they think there is just something wrong with their child.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Asclepias said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> At that point its a battle of wills.  Your child can be picked up and placed in their room or time out spot for as many time as it is necessary to get your point across. When they understand your will is stronger than theirs they will get the picture. You will not have resorted to violence and the lesson lasts a whole lot longer.  My oldest daughter tested me when she was 3 or 4 and this went on for almost 4 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife simply went out her bedroom window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her parents should have thought of that before placing her somewhere she would have access to climb out a window. She must be something else being able to climb out of a window at 3 years of age.
Click to expand...


She wasn't 11 or 12, as I recall.  Her father never suspected, because it's a second-floor window.  (And even now, she climbs like a cat.)


----------



## asterism

Asclepias said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People tend to talk about what *they* do with their children instead of asking experts or people that have well behaved, well performing kids what works best. People will comment unsolicited on how great your kids are but rarely do they ask for tips or what specifically you do. There is definitely a stigma still on asking for help with raising children or they think there is just something wrong with their child.
Click to expand...


"Experts," like Dr. Spock?  That's part of the problem.

However, I'm constantly asked "how do you do it?" by parents and my kids aren't exactly angels but they are known to be rambunctious, happy, and polite when they need to be.  I think I get asked for parenting advice because of the way kids who are not mine respond to me in my scouting and other volunteer roles.

I've found that *MOST* (emphasis on most) dysfunctional kids are the results of parents that can't commit to actual parenting.  They are too tired, too busy, or too disinterested in doing the hard part - actively parenting children non-stop every single day.  They don't give 10 parts praise, 3 parts constructive criticism, and 1 part punishment.  They don't manage their kids to set them up for success so that they can encourage them and they ignore the times the kids failed because it makes them feel bad that their little one will miss a movie/party/fun activity.  

Of course these are mostly the same failed parents of screw-ups that will abhor spanking and all forms of it while emotionally isolating their children.  Spanking won't help these kids because they are manipulating their parents.


----------



## Asclepias

asterism said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to talk about what *they* do with their children instead of asking experts or people that have well behaved, well performing kids what works best. People will comment unsolicited on how great your kids are but rarely do they ask for tips or what specifically you do. There is definitely a stigma still on asking for help with raising children or they think there is just something wrong with their child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Experts," like Dr. Spock?  That's part of the problem.
> 
> However, I'm constantly asked "how do you do it?" by parents and my kids aren't exactly angels but they are known to be rambunctious, happy, and polite when they need to be.  I think I get asked for parenting advice because of the way kids who are not mine respond to me in my scouting and other volunteer roles.
> 
> I've found that *MOST* (emphasis on most) dysfunctional kids are the results of parents that can't commit to actual parenting.  They are too tired, too busy, or too disinterested in doing the hard part - actively parenting children non-stop every single day.  They don't give 10 parts praise, 3 parts constructive criticism, and 1 part punishment.  They don't manage their kids to set them up for success so that they can encourage them and they ignore the times the kids failed because it makes them feel bad that their little one will miss a movie/party/fun activity.
> 
> Of course these are mostly the same failed parents of screw-ups that will abhor spanking and all forms of it while emotionally isolating their children.  Spanking won't help these kids because they are manipulating their parents.
Click to expand...


Never read Dr Spock.  I mean like going to family counseling and yes books for back up and just keeping an eye out for things other parents seem to be doing that produce great results.  One of the best tips I ever got for my girls came from another dad who was not embarrassed to take his daughters shopping for underwear.  I agree with your assessment on dysfunctional kids 100%


----------



## Michelle420

&#8220;"When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastor&#8217;s wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didn&#8217;t believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking&#8211;the first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.

The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, &#8220;Mama, I couldn&#8217;t find a switch, but here&#8217;s a rock that you can throw at me.&#8221;

All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the child&#8217;s point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.

And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.&#8221;&#8221;

&#8212; 	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech


----------



## GISMYS

drifter said:


> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech



such wisdom,understanding,knowledge, how did little man get so much wiser than ALMIGHTY GOD????


----------



## GISMYS

GISMYS said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such wisdom,understanding,knowledge, how did little man get so much wiser than ALMIGHTY GOD????
Click to expand...


If you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don't love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline themPROVERBS 13:24


----------



## asterism

Asclepias said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to talk about what *they* do with their children instead of asking experts or people that have well behaved, well performing kids what works best. People will comment unsolicited on how great your kids are but rarely do they ask for tips or what specifically you do. There is definitely a stigma still on asking for help with raising children or they think there is just something wrong with their child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Experts," like Dr. Spock?  That's part of the problem.
> 
> However, I'm constantly asked "how do you do it?" by parents and my kids aren't exactly angels but they are known to be rambunctious, happy, and polite when they need to be.  I think I get asked for parenting advice because of the way kids who are not mine respond to me in my scouting and other volunteer roles.
> 
> I've found that *MOST* (emphasis on most) dysfunctional kids are the results of parents that can't commit to actual parenting.  They are too tired, too busy, or too disinterested in doing the hard part - actively parenting children non-stop every single day.  They don't give 10 parts praise, 3 parts constructive criticism, and 1 part punishment.  They don't manage their kids to set them up for success so that they can encourage them and they ignore the times the kids failed because it makes them feel bad that their little one will miss a movie/party/fun activity.
> 
> Of course these are mostly the same failed parents of screw-ups that will abhor spanking and all forms of it while emotionally isolating their children.  Spanking won't help these kids because they are manipulating their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never read Dr Spock.  I mean like going to family counseling and yes books for back up and just keeping an eye out for things other parents seem to be doing that produce great results.  One of the best tips I ever got for my girls came from another dad who was not embarrassed to take his daughters shopping for underwear.  I agree with your assessment on dysfunctional kids 100%
Click to expand...


I will only disagree on the "family counseling" aspect.  While there are some very excellent resources out there, most "family counseling" is terrible - all theory and no practice, usually facilitated by someone who doesn't have kids.

I know this thread started as a discussion on spanking, but I think the conversation has evolved into the broader concept of parenting in general.  Other than a few outliers, the vast majority of those who support spanking are those who rarely use it.  That should be encouraging.


----------



## asterism

drifter said:


> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech



I tried that on my Grammy (I was well-read for a 9 year old) and she made it clear that she didn't want to hurt me, she wanted to get my attention.  She had me sit next to a tree for the morning, refused me pecan pie for lunch dessert, and wouldn't let me drive the tractor with Granddad that day.

The next day I was caught throwing acorns at the cattle.  She gave me a choice of yesterday's punishment or the switch.  I got her a good switch (not too long but not too short) and it was done in 5 minutes.  Lesson learned, on with the day, and I drove the tractor by myself for the first time.  I got peach cobbler for lunch dessert and I never forgot it.


----------



## GISMYS

asterism said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried that on my Grammy (I was well-read for a 9 year old) and she made it clear that she didn't want to hurt me, she wanted to get my attention.  She had me sit next to a tree for the morning, refused me pecan pie for lunch dessert, and wouldn't let me drive the tractor with Granddad that day.
> 
> The next day I was caught throwing acorns at the cattle.  She gave me a choice of yesterday's punishment or the switch.  I got her a good switch (not too long but not too short) and it was done in 5 minutes.  Lesson learned, on with the day, and I drove the tractor by myself for the first time.  I got peach cobbler for lunch dessert and I never forgot it.
Click to expand...


I saw my little brother get spankings for telling lies so I told him if you are going to lie then stick to your story. Later mon told us ,:don't eat those plums they may have worms" but we ate them and mom asked ,did you boys eat those plums? I said yes I did but my little brother said no!! Honest positive no with plum skins on his front teeth. Wow did he get another spanking!!!  DON'T LIE!!!


----------



## asterism

GISMYS said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried that on my Grammy (I was well-read for a 9 year old) and she made it clear that she didn't want to hurt me, she wanted to get my attention.  She had me sit next to a tree for the morning, refused me pecan pie for lunch dessert, and wouldn't let me drive the tractor with Granddad that day.
> 
> The next day I was caught throwing acorns at the cattle.  She gave me a choice of yesterday's punishment or the switch.  I got her a good switch (not too long but not too short) and it was done in 5 minutes.  Lesson learned, on with the day, and I drove the tractor by myself for the first time.  I got peach cobbler for lunch dessert and I never forgot it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw my little brother get spankings for telling lies so I told him if you are going to lie then stick to your story. Later mon told us ,:don't eat those plums they may have worms" but we ate them and mom asked ,did you boys eat those plums? I said yes I did but my little brother said no!! Honest positive no with plum skins on his front teeth. Wow did he get another spanking!!!  DON'T LIE!!!
Click to expand...


I hope you understand that "spare the rod spoil the child" is a euphemism and that not every child needs to be spanked.


----------



## Michelle420

GISMYS said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such wisdom,understanding,knowledge, how did little man get so much wiser than ALMIGHTY GOD????
Click to expand...


Interpretation of God is relative to who you ask.

To me God is Love


----------



## FA_Q2

oldfart said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not kidding.  But you are reminding me that most of America is different from where my kids were reared, a third world country known as Mississippi.  It's a class and culture issue.  It's like the old demographers joke about West Virginia.  Seriously, in Appalachia severe physical punishment is common in many families, as is a pattern of young men taking it until they can whup their father, after which they normally leave the household and often the state.
> 
> My students reaction to self-help books would have been ask for wine and cheese while reading the book.  If you suggested they could benefit from any form of psychological help, you were accusing them "of being crazy".  This is clearly a different set of people from those who consider analysis a form of recreation.
> 
> I'll spot you that many well educated Americans living in comfortable middle class communities consume millions of self-help books and consider treatment for mental and behavior problems as a necessary facet of health care without stigma.
> 
> But there is another America out there too.  The stigma is real, even if it's not apparent in your neighborhood.
Click to expand...

I dont doubt that it is real  bad parents are going to be a constant for as long as man exists.  We are not perfect.  HOWEVER, your post makes those seem like it is the norm rather than the exception.  As though it is rare to find people who want to share parenting experience/knowledge and common for people to pigheadedly refuse such.  I think that is completely incorrect.  

The connection with education is also irrelevant to this.  My neighborhood has been all over the country (and a few others) as I am moving a LOT and I am confident that the norm is parents genuinely looking for effective advice.


----------



## FA_Q2

Asclepias said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has a cultural problem in that many people believe that being a good parent is either something genetic you are born with or that you are weird if you don't just figure it out on your own.  There seems to be some shame attached to admitting that you are willing to consider improving parenting skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People tend to talk about what *they* do with their children instead of asking experts or people that have well behaved, well performing kids what works best. People will comment unsolicited on how great your kids are but rarely do they ask for tips or what specifically you do. There is definitely a stigma still on asking for help with raising children or they think there is just something wrong with their child.
Click to expand...


Because asking experts is rather meaningless.  Experts are not available to you all the time nor do they even necessarily know what they are talking about.  The people I want to hear from are PARENTS.  I know they at least have some functional experience and understand that the perfect picture of sitting down and explaining something is not necessarily so perfect when dealing with real children. 

I find I learn a lot from other parents when watching them with my children  you get to see them act and react to the specific child and what works.  Experts also have an intrinsic problem  they speak about a child that does not actually exists.  The normal or average.  Having children you should understand the fact that they are VERY individualistic.


----------



## Iceweasel

drifter said:


> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech


That was an example of an incredibly stupid woman. No difference between a stone and a switch? Obviously the story was a made up lie to propgandize the issue but it is a good example why the peace prize is nothing but a polical tool for feeling good about yourself. Might as well call it the politically correct masterbation prize.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Hitting children is for people who are too stupid to figure out another way to raise children.


----------



## oldfart

asterism said:


> I've found that *MOST* (emphasis on most) dysfunctional kids are the results of parents that can't commit to actual parenting.  They are too tired, too busy, or too disinterested in doing the hard part - actively parenting children non-stop every single day.  They don't give 10 parts praise, 3 parts constructive criticism, and 1 part punishment.  They don't manage their kids to set them up for success so that they can encourage them and they ignore the times the kids failed because it makes them feel bad that their little one will miss a movie/party/fun activity.
> 
> Of course these are mostly the same failed parents of screw-ups that will abhor spanking and all forms of it while emotionally isolating their children.  Spanking won't help these kids because they are manipulating their parents.



You make the essential point that uninvolved parents tend to have problem kids.  Where I disagree with you is the implication that most of these are parents who won't discipline.  Quite a few are parents who only discipline.


----------



## oldfart

GISMYS said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such wisdom,understanding,knowledge, how did little man get so much wiser than ALMIGHTY GOD????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don't love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline themPROVERBS 13:24
Click to expand...


You realize you just answered your own post?  Perhaps you don't know how to use the edit function?  I suggest you pray to your God for the wisdom to learn how to post properly.  

Let me further state that you have posted that Biblical reference before.  Since this is the beginning and end of how you justify anything, I should expect it.  Nevertheless, repetitive and redundant posts that never advance the discussion are tiresome to every poster who tries to have a meaningful discussion.  

While I respect your right to hold religious opinions as bizarre as you wish, your behavior is a form of trolling and I ask you to stop it.  Post anything you wish once in a thread, but then don't repeat it.


----------



## Asclepias

FA_Q2 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre kidding right?
> 
> There are a million parenting books.  Most parents hang out with other parents (single people do entirely different things than parents seem to) and they tend to talk about their children and raising them.  At least that has been my experience with almost all the parents I know.
> 
> If people are not asking for his advice it sure is not because there is some stigmatism about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to talk about what *they* do with their children instead of asking experts or people that have well behaved, well performing kids what works best. People will comment unsolicited on how great your kids are but rarely do they ask for tips or what specifically you do. There is definitely a stigma still on asking for help with raising children or they think there is just something wrong with their child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because asking experts is rather meaningless.  Experts are not available to you all the time nor do they even necessarily know what they are talking about.  The people I want to hear from are PARENTS.  I know they at least have some functional experience and understand that the perfect picture of sitting down and explaining something is not necessarily so perfect when dealing with real children.
> 
> I find I learn a lot from other parents when watching them with my children  you get to see them act and react to the specific child and what works.  Experts also have an intrinsic problem  they speak about a child that does not actually exists.  The normal or average.  Having children you should understand the fact that they are VERY individualistic.
Click to expand...


I look at it like this. An expert can help you out with a foundation. If you are learning to play basketball would you prefer someone at your stage of development in the sport or Pop who coaches the San Antonio Spurs?  If you get a speeding ticket is a attorney more likely to get it dismissed or your friend who knows no one at the courts?  An expert can give you the basic tools or foundation from which to grow. Over time you are going to tailor your techniques to fit each specific child. My oldest was very headstrong and so is my youngest.  The 2 in the middle are way easier.  We used the same basic foundation learned from a child psychologist my wife knew as a friend growing up. We just tweaked the specifics to accommodate each child in keeping with the basic principles of the foundation.  You also pull from other sources if they fit the basic principles.


----------



## Jarlaxle

GISMYS said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such wisdom,understanding,knowledge, how did little man get so much wiser than ALMIGHTY GOD????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don't love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline themPROVERBS 13:24
Click to expand...


Please stop trolling and confine your religious babble to the appropriate forum.


----------



## GISMYS

jarlaxle said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> such wisdom,understanding,knowledge, how did little man get so much wiser than almighty god????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don't love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline themproverbs 13:24
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please stop trolling and confine your religious babble to the appropriate forum.
Click to expand...


anything in the world except the truth of god's word!!!huh???


----------



## BlackSand

Noomi said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
Click to expand...


Yeah ... A burned hand is a lot better than a swat on the butt.

.


----------



## Vandalshandle

My x-son in law used to chase his 14 year old daughter around the house, swatting her with a leather belt. if the child had been a blood relative of mine, I would have turned him in to the police for child abuse. Since he was a relative of my wife, at the time, I stayed out of it. Worked out real well for him. Now the 14 year old is a 21 year old prostitute
.


----------



## Connery

Noomi said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. *If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.*
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
Click to expand...


Sometimes even the best of us have to be told something more than once. No need for this type of treatment. The child will remember that you allowed them to injure themselves  for the rest of their lives. That is not a very good legacy or lesson.


----------



## Jarlaxle

GISMYS said:


> jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don't love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline themproverbs 13:24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please stop trolling and confine your religious babble to the appropriate forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything in the world except the truth of god's word!!!huh???
Click to expand...


Please stop trolling and confine your religious babble to the appropriate forum.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Vandalshandle said:


> My x-son in law used to chase his 14 year old daughter around the house, swatting her with a leather belt. if the child had been a blood relative of mine, I would have turned him in to the police for child abuse. Since he was a relative of my wife, at the time, I stayed out of it. Worked out real well for him. Now the 14 year old is a 21 year old prostitute.



Kindest thing to do would be to shoot both of them.  Did she kill (or at least maim) him first?


----------



## Montrovant

Jarlaxle said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My x-son in law used to chase his 14 year old daughter around the house, swatting her with a leather belt. if the child had been a blood relative of mine, I would have turned him in to the police for child abuse. Since he was a relative of my wife, at the time, I stayed out of it. Worked out real well for him. Now the 14 year old is a 21 year old prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindest thing to do would be to shoot both of them.  Did she kill (or at least maim) him first?
Click to expand...


And you complain that someone else is being a troll.


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> That was an example of an incredibly stupid woman. No difference between a stone and a switch? Obviously the story was a made up lie to propgandize the issue but it is a good example why the peace prize is nothing but a polical tool for feeling good about yourself. Might as well call it the politically correct masterbation prize.
Click to expand...



^^ Ironic post for a thread about spanking, since it's made of pure *butthurt*.


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastors wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didnt believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spankingthe first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
> 
> The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, Mama, I couldnt find a switch, but heres a rock that you can throw at me.
> 
> All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the childs point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
> 
> And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.
> 
>  	Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking, 1978 Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
> 
> 
> 
> That was an example of an incredibly stupid woman. No difference between a stone and a switch? Obviously the story was a made up lie to propgandize the issue but it is a good example why the peace prize is nothing but a polical tool for feeling good about yourself. Might as well call it the politically correct masterbation prize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Ironic post for a thread about spanking, since it's made of pure *butthurt*.
Click to expand...


*Yeah, sure whatever ... Put the rock down Pogo.*

.


----------



## R.D.

Noomi said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
Click to expand...


They will never forget that you failed to protect them from harm.  Standing by doing nothing while your child is hurt _is_ abuse, both physical and emotional.  

Good move


----------



## Bumberclyde

R.D. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will never forget that you failed to protect them from harm.  Standing by doing nothing while your child is hurt _is_ abuse, both physical and emotional.
> 
> Good move
Click to expand...


How does a 4 year old climb onto a stove? Do you leave the pool gate open as well when you're not there?


----------



## Montrovant

Bumberclyde said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will never forget that you failed to protect them from harm.  Standing by doing nothing while your child is hurt _is_ abuse, both physical and emotional.
> 
> Good move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a 4 year old climb onto a stove? Do you leave the pool gate open as well when you're not there?
Click to expand...


You may be underestimating the size of a 4 year old.  Not only can the 4 year old I nanny climb onto the counters/stove if she wants to, she can simply reach up and touch the burners while standing on the floor.

I don't accept that a child will never forget you failed to protect them, though.  That's entirely dependent on the particular child.


----------



## BobPlumb

Bumberclyde said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will never forget that you failed to protect them from harm.  Standing by doing nothing while your child is hurt _is_ abuse, both physical and emotional.
> 
> Good move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a 4 year old climb onto a stove? Do you leave the pool gate open as well when you're not there?
Click to expand...


Don't underestimate the ability of a 4 year old.  They can do some incredible things and some incredibly dangerous things.


----------



## Bumberclyde

BobPlumb said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will never forget that you failed to protect them from harm.  Standing by doing nothing while your child is hurt _is_ abuse, both physical and emotional.
> 
> Good move
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 4 year old climb onto a stove? Do you leave the pool gate open as well when you're not there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't underestimate the ability of a 4 year old.  They can do some incredible things and some incredibly dangerous things.
Click to expand...


Is this a thread about retarded kids? Then I agree.


----------



## BobPlumb

Bumberclyde said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 4 year old climb onto a stove? Do you leave the pool gate open as well when you're not there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't underestimate the ability of a 4 year old.  They can do some incredible things and some incredibly dangerous things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this a thread about retarded kids? Then I agree.
Click to expand...


Kids do some very stupid things even if they are very intelligent.


----------



## Bumberclyde

BobPlumb said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't underestimate the ability of a 4 year old.  They can do some incredible things and some incredibly dangerous things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a thread about retarded kids? Then I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids do some very stupid things even if they are very intelligent.
Click to expand...


You should try a different test, lol.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was an example of an incredibly stupid woman. No difference between a stone and a switch? Obviously the story was a made up lie to propgandize the issue but it is a good example why the peace prize is nothing but a polical tool for feeling good about yourself. Might as well call it the politically correct masterbation prize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Ironic post for a thread about spanking, since it's made of pure *butthurt*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yeah, sure whatever ... Put the rock down Pogo.*
Click to expand...



"Rock"??  

C'mon, that was pure cleverity and you loved it.  I know you did.
You want a spankin'?


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> "Rock"??
> 
> C'mon, that was pure cleverity and you loved it.  I know you did.
> You want a spankin'?



Pfft ... Only old folks or the those suffering from lack-luster performance issues need to reduce themselves to some kind of dominance gameplay.
If it isn't stupid hot and awesome without the props ... You ain't doing it right.

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Rock"??
> 
> C'mon, that was pure cleverity and you loved it.  I know you did.
> You want a spankin'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfft ... Only old folks or the those suffering from lack-luster performance issues need to reduce themselves to some kind of dominance gameplay.
> If it isn't stupid hot and awesome without the props ... You ain't doing it right.
Click to expand...



Glad to hear you say that because I completely agree.  Good thing too, I was gonna have to refer you to somebody in that field.  Now you're all mine


----------



## Jarlaxle

R.D. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Situational thought experiment;
> 
> Your 4 year old gregarious child climbs up onto the kitchen stove and is about to place a hand on a hot burner.
> 
> Do you...
> 
> A) Grab the child off the stove and give a lecture.
> 
> B) Grab the child off the stove and give a spank.
> 
> C) Let the child figure it out by trial and error.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will never forget that you failed to protect them from harm.  Standing by doing nothing while your child is hurt _is_ abuse, both physical and emotional.
> 
> Good move
Click to expand...


Are you one of those weirdos who won't let kids leave the house without covering them in bubble-wrap?


----------



## FA_Q2

Jarlaxle said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warn the child the first time, and tell the child that it is hot, and they should not touch. If the child ignores my warning, I'd let them touch the burner.
> 
> They will never touch it again, and will listen to me when I say that something is hot. Sometimes you have to let people figure things out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will never forget that you failed to protect them from harm.  Standing by doing nothing while your child is hurt _is_ abuse, both physical and emotional.
> 
> Good move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you one of those weirdos who won't let kids leave the house without covering them in bubble-wrap?
Click to expand...


The burner analogy is a bad one.  such burns can be PERMANENT. 

That is past the line of letting them do it and learn for themselves and believe me - I am a big supporter of that line of thought.  If it is not going to cause serious harm (such as a broken bone) or cause permanent damage then I will let my kids figure it out themselves when my warnings are ignored.


----------



## richstacy

I was spanked a few times when I was a kid and it worked on me -- and I'm not warped.  On the other hand, we didn't spank our kids and they are fine too. So I just don't think it's that big a deal.


----------



## freedombecki

Mom arrested for spanking child in Corpus Christi, Texas:



> Rosalia Gonzales of Corpus Christi was arrested for spanking in December when her almost-2-year-old daughter's grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear and took her to the hospital. Gonzales avoided jail time, but not before hearing some stern words from the judge.
> 
> 
> "You dont spank children today," Judge Jose Longoria said. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?" To which Gonzales answered, "Yes, sir."
> 
> Gonzales will be on probation for five years, has been ordered to take parenting classes, and give $50 to the Children's Advocacy Center. She currently does not have custody of any of her three kids (they're with their paternal grandmother), but is working with Child Protective Services to get them back.


 
Mom Arrested for Spanking - Parenting.com


----------



## Jarlaxle

She should have been tortured to death over a period of one year.


----------



## beagle9

freedombecki said:


> Mom arrested for spanking child in Corpus Christi, Texas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rosalia Gonzales of Corpus Christi was arrested for spanking in December when her almost-2-year-old daughter's grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear and took her to the hospital. Gonzales avoided jail time, but not before hearing some stern words from the judge.
> 
> 
> "You dont spank children today," Judge Jose Longoria said. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?" To which Gonzales answered, "Yes, sir."
> 
> Gonzales will be on probation for five years, has been ordered to take parenting classes, and give $50 to the Children's Advocacy Center. She currently does not have custody of any of her three kids (they're with their paternal grandmother), but is working with Child Protective Services to get them back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mom Arrested for Spanking - Parenting.com
Click to expand...

So sad.... What will we do if Putin & China tries to spank us if we interfer in that region of the world to much, and if they are still just like the mom and dad's of old were, otherwise in their thinking back in the day ? 

Will we tell him hey (Putin) you don't spank now, do you hear me ? That is what Obama will say next to Putin probably. Now will it work ? Umm I guess it will have to be seen, because it sure isn't working here or any place else lately. Like I said before, we are becoming the laughing stock of the world.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jarlaxle said:


> She should have been tortured to death over a period of one year.



Yes definitely.  then the children can be taken from their parent and placed in a much better place like these children were: 

Colorado News and Denver News: The Denver Post

Because the state is a FAR better ward than someone that spanks their children as evidenced by this wonderful example...


Your reactions are based entirely on hatred and emotion without the slightest thought to reason.  The fact that you want to torture and kill over a swat on the bottom tells me that you have not the slightest clue what the subject matter even is.  I guess that violence (that is advocating to kill) is just fine in your book but disciplining children is not.  That is utterly insane.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Spanking is for cowards and people too stupid to raise children properly.


----------



## DriftingSand

Spanking and/or the threat of spanking is a good training tool and deterrent to bad behavior.

*Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
*__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV


----------



## DriftingSand

freedombecki said:


> Mom arrested for spanking child in Corpus Christi, Texas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rosalia Gonzales of Corpus Christi was arrested for spanking in December when her almost-2-year-old daughter's grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear and took her to the hospital. Gonzales avoided jail time, but not before hearing some stern words from the judge.
> 
> 
> "You dont spank children today," Judge Jose Longoria said. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?" To which Gonzales answered, "Yes, sir."
> 
> Gonzales will be on probation for five years, has been ordered to take parenting classes, and give $50 to the Children's Advocacy Center. She currently does not have custody of any of her three kids (they're with their paternal grandmother), but is working with Child Protective Services to get them back.
> 
> 
> 
> Mom Arrested for Spanking - Parenting.com
Click to expand...


Today's judges are literal idiots. How on earth did some of these morons become judges in the first place?


----------



## Pogo

DriftingSand said:


> Spanking and/or the threat of spanking is a good training tool and deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> *Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
> *__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV



Obviously.  Look what it's done for Jaraxle.

Yessiree, there's nothing better for constructive personal growth than the threat of physical pain and suffering.  Ask anyone who's had a pet.  Good thinkin'.  

(/sarc)


----------



## beagle9

Bumberclyde said:


> Spanking is for cowards and people too stupid to raise children properly.


Well when your son comes back, and he decks you when he is old enough, then you will say "SON", how could you treat your father like this, I mean I never laid a hand upon you, but you are going to miss-read my kindness that I showed you, in that it had been a weakness this whole time now ?

It happens, and I have seen it happen time and time again. All I could think is I told you so.

When your son decks you, then who was the real coward in it all then ? Kids expect to be disiplined and taught right in life, and when they aren't, they see it as a betrayal or rather that they were in a situation where their parents were just weak in their life, and they expected better than that out of them. People running away from the parent responsibilities in life are cowards, and spanking is a responsibility of the parent when it is warranted. If a parent can't disipline a child correctly when it comes to any method as is used, then the parent should get help immediately by the right counceling, and they should be the ones who are doped up on the drugs, and not the children because of an idiot parent who can't handle it.


----------



## beagle9

Pogo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking and/or the threat of spanking is a good training tool and deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> *Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
> *__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Look what it's done for Jaraxle.
> 
> Yessiree, there's nothing better for constructive personal growth than the threat of physical pain and suffering.  Ask anyone who's had a pet.  Good thinkin'.
> 
> (/sarc)
Click to expand...

Kidding me right, because Jar has already said that he was abused (BIG DIFFERENCE), so you got anymore idiocy to add ?


----------



## Bumberclyde

Spanking children is for adults with low IQ.


----------



## DriftingSand

Pogo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking and/or the threat of spanking is a good training tool and deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> *Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
> *__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Look what it's done for Jaraxle.
> 
> Yessiree, there's nothing better for constructive personal growth than the threat of physical pain and suffering.  Ask anyone who's had a pet.  Good thinkin'.
> 
> (/sarc)
Click to expand...


Swats on the butt may sting a little bit for a little while but they don't leave permanent scars.  However, the idea that a spanking may be the result of bad behavior ALWAYS worked to deter me from doing what I knew was wrong.  

I've seen children in public places get away with extremely poor behavior as a result of poor upbringing and lack of discipline. Why? Because the parents are too afraid to properly discipline their child over fear of legal punishments meted out by "progressive" judges who don't have a clue.


----------



## Bumberclyde

DriftingSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking and/or the threat of spanking is a good training tool and deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> *Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
> *__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Look what it's done for Jaraxle.
> 
> Yessiree, there's nothing better for constructive personal growth than the threat of physical pain and suffering.  Ask anyone who's had a pet.  Good thinkin'.
> 
> (/sarc)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swats on the butt may sting a little bit for a little while but they don't leave permanent scars.  However, the idea that a spanking may be the result of bad behavior ALWAYS worked to deter me from doing what I knew was wrong.
> 
> I've seen children in public places get away with extremely poor behavior as a result of poor upbringing and lack of discipline. Why? Because the parents are too afraid to properly discipline their child over fear of legal punishments meted out by "progressive" judges who don't have a clue.
Click to expand...


Beating children is for cowards with low IQ.


----------



## DriftingSand

beagle9 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is for cowards and people too stupid to raise children properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Well when your son comes back, and he decks you when he is old enough, then you will say "SON", how could you treat your father like this, I mean I never laid a hand upon you, but you are going to miss-read my kindness that I showed you, in that it had been a weakness this whole time now ?
> 
> It happens, and I have seen it happen time and time again. All I could think is I told you so.
> 
> When your son decks you, then who was the real coward in it all then ? Kids expect to be disiplined and taught right in life, and when they aren't, they see it as a betrayal or rather that they were in a situation where their parents were just weak in their life, and they expected better than that out of them. People running away from the parent responsibilities in life are cowards, and spanking is a responsibility of the parent when it is warranted. If a parent can't disipline a child correctly when it comes to any method as is used, then the parent should get help immediately by the right counceling, and they should be the ones who are doped up on the drugs, and not the children because of an idiot parent who can't handle it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking and/or the threat of spanking is a good training tool and deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> *Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
> *__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Look what it's done for Jaraxle.
> 
> Yessiree, there's nothing better for constructive personal growth than the threat of physical pain and suffering.  Ask anyone who's had a pet.  Good thinkin'.
> 
> (/sarc)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kidding me right, because Jar has already said that he was abused (BIG DIFFERENCE), so you got anymore idiocy to add ?
Click to expand...


Uh ---- nnnno, it ain't a BIG DIFFERENCE just because you put it in caps.  

Don't take my word for it -- raise a dog or cat like that and see what you get out of it.  You get a cowering, paranoid, angry animal that will snarl and attack, because that's what it's been taught.


----------



## Pogo

DriftingSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking and/or the threat of spanking is a good training tool and deterrent to bad behavior.
> 
> *Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
> *__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Look what it's done for Jaraxle.
> 
> Yessiree, there's nothing better for constructive personal growth than the threat of physical pain and suffering.  Ask anyone who's had a pet.  Good thinkin'.
> 
> (/sarc)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swats on the butt may sting a little bit for a little while but they don't leave permanent scars.  However, the idea that a spanking may be the result of bad behavior ALWAYS worked to deter me from doing what I knew was wrong.
> 
> I've seen children in public places get away with extremely poor behavior as a result of poor upbringing and lack of discipline. Why? Because the parents are too afraid to properly discipline their child over fear of legal punishments meted out by "progressive" judges who don't have a clue.
Click to expand...


-- none of which is on the topic.


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is for cowards and people too stupid to raise children properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Well when your son comes back, and he decks you when he is old enough, then you will say "SON", how could you treat your father like this, I mean I never laid a hand upon you, but you are going to miss-read my kindness that I showed you, in that it had been a weakness this whole time now ?
> 
> It happens, and I have seen it happen time and time again. All I could think is I told you so.
> 
> When your son decks you, then who was the real coward in it all then ? Kids expect to be disiplined and taught right in life, and when they aren't, they see it as a betrayal or rather that they were in a situation where their parents were just weak in their life, and they expected better than that out of them. People running away from the parent responsibilities in life are cowards, and spanking is a responsibility of the parent when it is warranted. If a parent can't disipline a child correctly when it comes to any method as is used, then the parent should get help immediately by the right counceling, and they should be the ones who are doped up on the drugs, and not the children because of an idiot parent who can't handle it.
Click to expand...


They don't expect to be attacked by the entity that's otherwise nurturing them.  That's a mixed message if ever there was one.

Your personal masochistic fantasies that "kids are asking for it", trust me they're not shared by many.  But it is strikingly akin to the rationalization of the rapist.


----------



## alan1

Noomi said:


> There is never any need to use physical punishment when it comes to children. You cannot tell your kids that its wrong to hit someone, yet hit them yourself. Sends the wrong message.
> 
> And no, I don't have kids, and yes, I was smacked a few times as a kid - and I turned out to be depressed, suicidal, and prone to outbursts of violence. If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them.



My parents never told me it was wrong to hit someone.
I am unsure why some people seem to think that parents that spank their kids also tell their kids it is wrong to hit someone.  Maybe it is just a liberal meme.

See, hitting someone is a relative term.
And sometimes hitting someone is the right thing to do.

If yer 14 years old and some asshole decides he wants to bully you, you stop him, and sometimes those idiots need a punch in the face for your point to get across.  I guess the alternative is that you can continue to be a wimp and get bullied.  Then snivel about bullying.

As for disciplining children, things vary by kid.  My eldest daughter absolutely hated "time out", so that was an effective means of discipline for her.  The youngest would just take a nap if she was put in "time out", so it was completely ineffective for discipline for her.

The best part from you is this,


Noomi said:


> If I ever have kids, I will refuse to lay a finger on them


If I had a dollar for every person that said that, then smacked their child, I'd probably be a billionaire.


----------



## alan1

Jarlaxle said:


> Anyone adult that hits a child in any way, shape, or form under any circumstances should be publicly tortured to death.



Yer a bit on the extreme side.
What other actions do you think warrant the death penalty?  Just curious.


----------



## Jarlaxle

alan1 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone adult that hits a child in any way, shape, or form under any circumstances should be publicly tortured to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer a bit on the extreme side.
> What other actions do you think warrant the death penalty?  Just curious.
Click to expand...


Treason, child molestation, corruption of a public official, and election fraud.


----------



## richstacy

alan1 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone adult that hits a child in any way, shape, or form under any circumstances should be publicly tortured to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer a bit on the extreme side.
> What other actions do you think warrant the death penalty? Just curious.
Click to expand...



  That's a bit like saying the Pacific is a bit on the wet side.


----------



## 1751_Texan

beagle9 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spanking is for cowards and people too stupid to raise children properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Well when your son comes back, and he decks you when he is old enough, then you will say "SON", how could you treat your father like this, I mean I never laid a hand upon you, but you are going to miss-read my kindness that I showed you, in that it had been a weakness this whole time now ?
> 
> It happens, and I have seen it happen time and time again. All I could think is I told you so.
> 
> When your son decks you, then who was the real coward in it all then ? Kids expect to be disiplined and taught right in life, and when they aren't, they see it as a betrayal or rather that they were in a situation where their parents were just weak in their life, and they expected better than that out of them. People running away from the parent responsibilities in life are cowards, and spanking is a responsibility of the parent when it is warranted. If a parent can't disipline a child correctly when it comes to any method as is used, then the parent should get help immediately by the right counceling, and they should be the ones who are doped up on the drugs, and not the children because of an idiot parent who can't handle it.
Click to expand...


If your son comes in a decks you...you and he have got bigger proplems than not spanking him as a child.


----------



## alan1

Jarlaxle said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone adult that hits a child in any way, shape, or form under any circumstances should be publicly tortured to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer a bit on the extreme side.
> What other actions do you think warrant the death penalty?  Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treason, child molestation, corruption of a public official, and election fraud.
Click to expand...


I can agree with those.
Spanking is a bit different


----------



## 1751_Texan

DriftingSand said:


> *Spanking* and/or the threat of spanking *is a good *training tool and *deterrent to bad behavior*.
> 
> *Proverbs 13:24*_*, "He who spares his rod hates his son,
> *__*But he who loves him disciplines him promptly." *_NKJV



Can you explian using Proverbs 13:24 as your guide, the proper way to spank a child?


----------



## beagle9

It's amazing how far gone this nation is, and it is evident big time by some of these responses that are viewed here. WOW!


----------



## NLT

The only time I spanked my children is when they were under 6 years old. They need to know that putting a fork into the wall outlet will kill them, same with putting hands on the stove or playing with matches. After they were 6 years old I had no need to spank them anymore. If your children respect you, you dont need to spank them.


----------

