Corporal Punishment - Do You Condone it?

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Well, should I be demonzied for caring about a child's welfare?

How many cases of abuse are ignored and become homicides these days?
Too many!

No, you should be demonized for carrying that caring too far. How many loving families will be visited by social workers and have children traumatized, taken from their parents and sent to foster homes because the parents have used spankings to discipline their children? There are already too many social workers that are ready to take children away from their parents for unwarranted reasons and have the power to do so. As spankings are not doing permanent physical, mental, or emotional damage to children, I see no need to police it more invasively than is currently the case. Socially stigmatize the parents all you want, but be careful with the law, it's a very blunt tool.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Ozz


Yer not a minor, Curt

Ah, Curt yer hearts in the right place, but yer wrong here, parents
know their kids, cause they got the same DNA, and alot of the
same traits and thought patterns, they know how and what worked on them as a kid, and what didn't. And if they don't know,
with all that going for them, you certainly don't.

Threats over the net carry no fear! - I am a trained ninja anyway!

Yes, my intentions are good, and I know sometimes a light slap is bound to happen.

OK, I have reality awareness, I know this is a natural thing.

But I am aiming at the reasons behind hitting that goes close to the unacceptable level.

Why do parents turn to violcence - is it a failure of their mental capacity to reason?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Since Sweden illegalized the spanking of children, the numbers of children sent to foster homes have been broadly falling. I'm not claiming cause and effect, but it makes me doubt that instituting such laws in other countries would necessarily lead to more forced separations.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by IglooDude


No, you should be demonized for carrying that caring too far. How many loving families will be visited by social workers and have children traumatized, taken from their parents and sent to foster homes because the parents have used spankings to discipline their children? There are already too many social workers that are ready to take children away from their parents for unwarranted reasons and have the power to do so. As spankings are not doing permanent physical, mental, or emotional damage to children, I see no need to police it more invasively than is currently the case. Socially stigmatize the parents all you want, but be careful with the law, it's a very blunt tool.

I am all for locking up abusive parents!

So how do we protect children like those slaughtered in Fresno rececently by that cult guy - who was their father?

Do we not use our 'blunt tool' then?

Or do we give in to liberal failure again?

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Ozz


Scotland..., that's were you live isn't it?

I just visitin' for the deep fried mars bars and the violence.

Don't make me mention mooses!

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Well, if you saw a woman being abused, would you citizens choose not to impinge on the rapist's right to be left alone?

I mean, who wants a 'busy-body' to intervene?

Now yer gettin' silly,

there is a PROPER way to handle this, You DON'T confront the
gentleman in his actions, just quietly slip the Lady in question
yer 12 gauge pump shotgun you keep under yer trenchcoat at
all times.

Don't forget to leave your card with the fore said lady so she
can return it when she's finshed.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Well, if you saw a woman being abused, would you citizens choose not to impinge on the rapist's right to be left alone?

I mean, who wants a 'busy-body' to intervene?

The parent is the legal guardian of a child and is regarded as being the person who MOST cares about the welfare of the child, so it is reasonable to give a lot more latitude to that situation than stepping in to stop a criminal act.

And for slippery slope arguments, how about the busybody that goes and disrupts Sunday School activities, feeling that it is right to intervene in the teaching of children about crackpot religious doctrine? It is brainwashing, after all.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I am all for locking up abusive parents!

So how do we protect children like those slaughtered in Fresno rececently by that cult guy - who was their father?

Do we not use our 'blunt tool' then?

Or do we give in to liberal failure again?

I am all for locking up abusive parents too, we just define abuse differently. You can point to failures to prevent greater abuse, and I can point to abuses of the system that led to families being broken up and traumatized. I think where the line is presently drawn leads to a balance between both of these horrific events. If you want to continue using social stigma to support your cause, fine and I hope you don't suffer a bloody nose for it, but I resolutely oppose your use of the government to further your cause.

I've made my position clear, feel free to have the last word.

 

[Bamspeedy]

able to take the beatings until her arm got tired

That I would say is going overboard. There is no reasy to hit a child for that long of period.

IMO, one or two slaps (with an open hand, and not a closed fist, and not hard enough to leave any marks or knock them down) should be sufficient.

is it a failure of their mental capacity to reason

The child may be too young to have the mental capacity to understand your reasoning.

Reasoning is the better option and should be the first option used, but if that fails, then a slap or two is OK, IMO.

I only got slapped on the bottom twice when I was a kid, that I remember. Once by my parents after I tried running away from home. The other time by my grandma after I got bored working on a jigsaw puzzle we were working on so when she went to the bathroom I tore the jigsaw puzzle apart. I still don't remember my reasoning for ruining the jigsaw puzzle, instead of just walking away. Silly kids!

 

[Ruchelli]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
(savagely backhands Ruchelli, and watches with binoculars as Ruchelli sails through the air and thunks into the bullseye) Yes! (pumps fist in air)


Hey Dumb pothead,

Is your hand o.kay? Normally, I find people break their hands when they hit solid rock.:die:

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by IglooDude
The parent is the legal guardian of a child and is regarded as being the person who MOST cares about the welfare of the child, so it is reasonable to give a lot more latitude to that situation than stepping in to stop a criminal act.

This is assuming that all parents are model citizens.

I do not have to tell you that they certainly are not.

It pays not to assume anything.

Originally posted by IglooDude
And for slippery slope arguments, how about the busybody that goes and disrupts Sunday School activities, feeling that it is right to intervene in the teaching of children about crackpot religious doctrine? It is brainwashing, after all.

Well, I only made this statement in answer to your fallacy that anyone who cares for a fellow human being's safety is a meddler.

Should I stand and watch a child be beaten?

If you think so, then you are lost to all sense.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by IglooDude


I am all for locking up abusive parents too, we just define abuse differently. You can point to failures to prevent greater abuse, and I can point to abuses of the system that led to families being broken up and traumatized. I think where the line is presently drawn leads to a balance between both of these horrific events. If you want to continue using social stigma to support your cause, fine and I hope you don't suffer a bloody nose for it, but I resolutely oppose your use of the government to further your cause.

I've made my position clear, feel free to have the last word.

Certainly.

You cannot deny that beating a child is wrong.

 

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Certainly.

You cannot deny that beating a child is wrong.

You cannot deny you're using a bait-and-switch to go from swatting a misbehaving child to beating one.

But then, you do tend to do things like this. Is it to get attention from people?

BTW: are you aware that humans are indeed animals, and human offspring are not born with any morals?

 

[Gainy]

I'm not really too fussed about other peoples opinions (meaning i've only read a couple of the posts), though seeing you made this thread wanting to know others', then here ye go

The hitting or beating of children for disciplinary reasons, would you say this is right?

Hitting, yes. Beating, no.

Is it a person's private business what they do to instil a child's sense of behaviour?

Not if they abuse them in any way, shape, or form. I have nothing against the occasional 'smack' though.

Or is it wrong in our age to hit a kid period?

Not at all.

Are there better ways to make a child behave?

Not that I can think of.

Most things are ok in moderation - Smacking is one of these. When I was younger, I would occasionaly get a wee smack if I did something which was dangerous to myself/others -- If I was rude or whatever, I would just get a telling off.
It seemed slightly sore then, but I think it was more shock of being punished than anything else. I don't think it was anything more than a "clip round the ear".

As a side note: I thought the thread was about capital punishment, in which case I would have answered hell yes! (but that's for another thread)

 

[Double Barrel]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Violence is only an outlet for the frustrations of abusive parents.

Well said.

Children are a product of their parents. Perhaps the logic of child beatings should extend to the parents, too! After all, a troubled child is the result of troubled parenting!

How many of you pro-beatings folks actually have children? It is one thing to debate this topic in the abstract, but quite another to conduct such uncivilized discipline on your own offspring.

Training a child starts early, as in infancy. Children want their parent's approval, and proper, mature management of child psychology can result in young ones that will behave. Too many people spoil their kids in the first three years, and then get upset at the consequences of their (in)actions.

Society has rules, and a young child must be taught the boundaries of good behavior. It is a black and white issue. But is beating your kid "good behavior", instrumental for being a civilized adult in society? NO!

Violence is not a good means of conflict resolution.

Beating your child is immoral and indecent. As Curt mentioned, it is the result of parenting failure, and too often becomes the outlet for frustrations. It is abusive, plain and simple.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by IglooDude


So you concede that whapping a dog on the butt with a rolled-up newspaper or rapping a cat's nose is effective discipline?

Wrong!

I train my own pet animals, and can tell that hitting any sentient being has bad results.

A stern bit of speech for misbehaving - And rewards for good acts, along with encouragement works far better.

What you advocate is rather steeped in hypocrisy.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Sinapus
You cannot deny you're using a bait-and-switch to go from swatting a misbehaving child to beating one.

I indeed deny that I know what you are on about here.

Originally posted by Sinapus
But then, you do tend to do things like this. Is it to get attention from people?

You cannot know me if you think I honestly care about other people's views of me.

Originally posted by Sinapus
BTW: are you aware that humans are indeed animals, and human offspring are not born with any morals?

Young animals - be they dogs, cats, hamsters or humans should not be harmed when at a young imprinting stage - bottom line.

Now, care to add any more insights?

 

[the mormegil]

This sounds like a 'the carrot or the stick' debate, if only I'd watched that program on it a couple of weeks back.

I can't remember ever being hit for being bad and that has done no bad. Infact, I am probably more responsible and less willing to do 'bad' things than other people my age.

Whether those things have anything to do with each other is another question.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
But I am aiming at the reasons behind hitting that goes close to the unacceptable level.

Why do parents turn to violcence - is it a failure of their mental capacity to reason?

That's abuse and mental/emotional/drug/brooze problems
, not discipline, No one will argue that.

It's a direct way of teaching below the consious level.
Stops the behavior before it starts a second time.

Our instincts are stronger than our reason.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Ozz


That's abuse and mental/emotional/drug/brooze problems
, not discipline, No one will argue that.

It's a direct way of teaching below the consious level.
Stops the behavior before it starts a second time.

Our instincts are stronger than our reason.

Hmmm...

By this philosophy then, acting like a caveman - in grabbing a woman by the hair and dragging her to a cave is OK in this age?

I mean, our instincts are stronger than our reason!

Sorry, Ozz.

I think you are a good chap, but I just cannot condone striking a kid when mental strategy can be employed instead.

It's laziness and ignorance on the parent's part.