Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
Yup, having read Rodger's post, I have now changed my mind. 
Can You Smack Your Child?
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
gr8ful wes
Deity
I prefer to use time-out. But if they get up off the chair they get a smak on the bottom(just one) I hate it.
I also think it is very important to redirect children before they need punnishment, and especially important to catch them doing something GOOD and reward/praise them for being such good little cherubs. I do this often, several times a day, even if they are just coloring nicely or playing I fuss over them saying how good they are being.
I had a few spankings as a youth, nothing severe. It is a last resort, and should NEVER be done in anger with intent to harm.
I also think it is very important to redirect children before they need punnishment, and especially important to catch them doing something GOOD and reward/praise them for being such good little cherubs. I do this often, several times a day, even if they are just coloring nicely or playing I fuss over them saying how good they are being.
I had a few spankings as a youth, nothing severe. It is a last resort, and should NEVER be done in anger with intent to harm.
gr8ful wes
Deity
And regarding rodgers post about smacking other children, Well, I would much prefer smacking their parents.
Maj
Emperor
For a child the action is disciplinary and meant to raise fear in its young developing mind so that when it considers doing the action that earned it the slap, it will probably reconsider.
The adult, on the other hand, will more likely respond with anger and contempt towards the person(s) who hit him/her. At their age, were they to know that certain actions in prison will lead to corporal punishment, they would not need to rely on mere emotional reminders to know doing "such and such" would elicit a violent response. They would make the concious/subconcious decision that whatever action they take is worth the risk of getting smacked around.
Just goes to show you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
So smacking is a form of conditioning? Well what is the difference between smacking a child because it was bad or because you had a bad day and the child did something slightly annoying? Also wouldn't the child fear the adult and therefore all adults? And should you smack the mentally disabled to teach them right from wrong?
This sounds like you are rationalising your past. It reminded me of a Dilbert cartoon a sure once, it was when Dogbert opened the school for hard knocks. And one lesson involved Dogbert repeatly hitting the students and he said that at first you may not see the benefit of this but over time you will come to rationalise it and say that you learned something from it.
Can someone explain to me how we can deplore the violence in the world today and yet say it is perfectly fine for a parent to use violence to teach a child a lesson. In debates (like these forums for example) using violence to get across your point is condemned so why should it be any different than with children? And also you can't hit an adult but you can hit a child, isn't this completely the wrong way round.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Smacking is using violence to teach a children what is wrong. It has everything to do with violence.
Yes. That would be considered assault. Define for me the difference between a terrorist smacking an Israeli settler and a terrorist shooting an Israeli settler?
TheStinger
Warlord
the IDF would blow his brains out
Eklektikos
Eponymous
It's physical communication, like a tap on the shoulder to attract attention, a hug to convey comfort or a kiss to demonstrate affection. A smack is intended to convey disapproval, not to cause harm.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Unless the child is deaf there is not way you are going to convince me that smacking is about communication.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
To use an example from my own childhood:
When I was but a wee toddler, I once decided that I wanted to explore an electrical socket - being too young to yet understand why this was a bad idea. My father spotted what I was upto, moved me away from it and emphatically told me not to try it again. I of course paid no attention, and soon off I went towards the socket once more. My mother intercepted me this time and, being a sensible scotswoman, repeated my father's actions with the addition of a smack. I did not try it again.
It effectively communicated to me that this was something I didn't want to do, when attempting to do so verbally had failed and would have continued to fail.
TheStinger
Warlord
I would be surprised to see 9 month old toddler
anyway-smacking to stop him hurting himself is different to smacking for punishment
anyway-smacking to stop him hurting himself is different to smacking for punishment
A child does not develop true reasoning ability until somewhere between the ages of 6 and 9 (for most children - there are exceptions at both ends). Until this development is reached, a parent can "talk" to the child until they are blue in the face, but it will do no good. The child only makes the most basic causal connections: if I do "X", I will get smacked.
gr8ful wes
Deity
My guess, ainwood, is that our fearless president has very little experience with kids, and probably doesn't have any. Nobel intentions though.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
I disagree - in essence, it's the same thing. The child is unable to reason why doing something is bad, and smacking is the most effective way to get the message across. Whether the 'bad' thing is the child injuring itself or being rude, etc, the reason for the smacking is the same.
Plus what Padma said
Switch625
I don't care.
Corporal punishment, when given in moderation and with good reason, is necessary. If children do not learn discipline as children, they will not have discipline as adults. It's as simple as that.
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
I'll play a little devil's advocate here because while I certainly do NOT think it should be illegal, I don't think disciplining children physically is right.
Now I have no objection when it's the fire or light socket example, but when used as a punishment it has been proven time and again to be inneffective, particularly when compared with postive reinforcement.
Basically, what you are teaching the child with negative reinforcement is to behave because they fear the punishment you will inflict upon them. It teaches nothing about why a given action is right or wrong, and so will have no bearing on their future behavior. It doesn't teach them to behave, it just teaches them to behave when you are around to punish them.
Using physical forms of punishment has also been shown to increase violent behavior in kids. It teaches them that if someone behaves in a way they don't like, the proper response is to hit them. They don't understand the difference between a gentle spanking and hauling off & belting another kid.
Now I'm not saying children should never be punished, because that's clearly ludicrous, but timeouts have been shown to have just as much an effect as spankings in innfluencing a childs behavior. Although neither work as well as the hope of a reward for good behavior that comes from positive reinforcement.
That said, I still don't think spanking is anywhere near harmful enough to warrant a law against it.
Now I have no objection when it's the fire or light socket example, but when used as a punishment it has been proven time and again to be inneffective, particularly when compared with postive reinforcement.
Basically, what you are teaching the child with negative reinforcement is to behave because they fear the punishment you will inflict upon them. It teaches nothing about why a given action is right or wrong, and so will have no bearing on their future behavior. It doesn't teach them to behave, it just teaches them to behave when you are around to punish them.
Using physical forms of punishment has also been shown to increase violent behavior in kids. It teaches them that if someone behaves in a way they don't like, the proper response is to hit them. They don't understand the difference between a gentle spanking and hauling off & belting another kid.
Now I'm not saying children should never be punished, because that's clearly ludicrous, but timeouts have been shown to have just as much an effect as spankings in innfluencing a childs behavior. Although neither work as well as the hope of a reward for good behavior that comes from positive reinforcement.
That said, I still don't think spanking is anywhere near harmful enough to warrant a law against it.
Maj
Emperor
Violence against a child is pretty much a form of conditioning. Not one I would ever administer to my child, but one nonetheless.
Intent. That is why if one chooses to discipline the child through violence some moral reasoning should be provided with some reassurance of love and affection towards it. Otherwise it would be just plain abuse. Sounds twisted, and is the reason why I'll never hit my child. At least that's what I tell my single, childless self now.
Good point. It raises a question of double standards for some and maybe a legal one at that. In terms of legistlation, striking a child with reasonable force may be legal, but striking an adult with that same amount of force would be assault.
I place trust in the saying "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" (think I got that particular quote from Asimov's Foundation). There are likely other ways to discipline a child without having to lay a finger on it. Depriving it of luxuries and explaining how its actions resulted as such would be one option. I'm far from fatherhood so I really can't say. Maybe I'll be swayed. Expectations can often take a completely different route than the actual experience.
Does anyone know how/if the higher primates discipline their young? I always find parallels between humans and other species to be helpful in deciphering our seemingly complex behaviour.
Similar threads
