Does Spanking kids Work?

[Iceweasel]

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]

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'.

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?

 

[oldfart]

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

 

[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?

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.

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]

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'.

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[Chaussette]

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.

You're so special

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

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

 

[eflatminor]

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?

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.

Agree 100%

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

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

 

[BillyZane]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

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?

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]

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.

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

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.