Does Spanking kids Work?

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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]

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.

Just wow

I see this is news to you?

 

[Montrovant]

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?

I don't understand what the question is here

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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!

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.]

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]

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]

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♭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]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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??

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]

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.

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.

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]

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Meister]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.