Spanking children. What good does it do ?

[Zelig]

I view those who are adamantly against it as foolish and naive.

[...]its simply murder.

[...]you would thank me for my insight and move on, instead of argueing with me about it.

Satisfactory answers have been given. You simply refuse to accept them.

Followed up by:

If you cannot communicate effectively with an educated adult...then you arent going to have much luck communicating whats bad to your child.

and I think many parents fail these days as parents due to a lack of personal responsibility, using tv as a means of "keeping them buzy" and refrain from using corporal punishment when it's needed.

Yeah, TV sucks, I'm keeping my kids away from both TV and internet.

 

[whosadork]

awww but i like the internet

 

[philippe]

Yeah, TV sucks, I'm keeping my kids away from both TV and internet.

Yeah, you won't see me posting a lot once I'll get kids, I'd think if all works out, that I as a teacher are going to homeschool my kid after the hours, and also do fun stuff with him/her and the wife.

But there is one aspects that kids need that i think seems to be missing: the ability to go out to nature, to the forests, the rivers, the fields. I remember having a blast in my childhood exploring the forests and cornfields (stealing is tasty ) and seeing the ruins of bunkers in the heart of the forest, it gives you a perspective of amazement, something most kids lack, due to the fact, parent's don't dare their children to be kids anymore, stuff them with pills, and don't give them an open, personal responsible world view.

And for the love of god, let your kids play in the street a bit, don't be afraid, and if you are afraid, try to get in touch with your neighbours and hang out outside in the evenings, revive your community.

and if some kiddo plays some msichief, for the love of humanity, don't sue or something. (some poeple these days are way too intolerant)

 

[Grisu]

and I think many parents fail these days as parents due to a lack of personal responsibility, using tv as a means of "keeping them buzy" and refrain from using corporal punishment when it's needed.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first part, but don't agree with the second part. I just don't see how corporal punishment is ever needed. Furthermore I'd like to point out to the people complaining about parents being too soft, spoiling their kids etc. (this is not directed at you, it's more general) has anything to do with whether they employ corporal punishment or not. Not spanking your kids doesn't mean that you can't be strict and discipline them...truth be told I know quite a few spoiled kids who have been spanked.....

But there is one aspects that kids need that i think seems to be missing: the ability to go out to nature, to the forests, the rivers, the fields. I remember having a blast in my childhood exploring the forests and cornfields (stealing is tasty ) and seeing the ruins of bunkers in the heart of the forest, it gives you a perspective of amazement, something most kids lack, due to the fact, parent's don't dare their children to be kids anymore, stuff them with pills, and don't give them an open, personal responsible world view.

And for the love of god, let your kids play in the street a bit, don't be afraid, and if you are afraid, try to get in touch with your neighbours and hang out outside in the evenings, revive your community.

and if some kiddo plays some msichief, for the love of humanity, don't sue or something. (some poeple these days are way too intolerant)

this part I again wholeheartedly agree with

 

[Archbob]

So, how many of you who are against spanking actually have kids?

 

[Grisu]

So, how many of you who are against spanking actually have kids?

probably about as many as those who are in favour of spanking....

 

[MobBoss]

It's not a case of watching them 24/7, but knowing what they're doing 24/7.

Do you think your kids will do what you think they are doing all the time?

Really?

Boy do you have some surprises coming.

Keeping an ear out and knowing which doors are open works perfectly fine, and I do speak from experience of looking after my 1 year old brother during my mother's recent pregnancy.

A 1 year old is pretty easy to keep track of. Wait until they are more mobile. You generally dont see that much defiant behavior until the 'terrible twos'.

I also dispute that smacking a child too young to understand most speech will teach them right from wrong... how do they know why they're being smacked? For all they know it could be for failing to get all the way to the top of the crystal cabinet.

Thats not how kids think. If you smack them for going near the cabinet and are consisnt they will get the message 'stay away from the cabinet'.

Excepts pain is meant to make us vary of what ever inflicts it, which in this case would be the parent.

Wrong. Little kids trust their parents implicitly. You are all they know. They dont associate the smacking with you, they associate it with their behavior at the time.

Unless you like smacking your kids when they dont need it. Then you might have a problem.

 

[Gogf]

A reasonable interpretation of what you had said up until then.

Not so, but if you wish to misconstrue everything I say as an attack on your intelligence there is little I can do to stop you.

Except that's not how it ever works. Even a small child is not that stupid. Nor is a rat, or a mouse, or a ferret.

It's odd that you say "even a small child is not that stupid" and yet still expect children to learn in some sort of animalistic, Pavlovian way.

 

[IglooDame]

Wrong on all counts. That is because you forgot one little thing , if you misinterpret one's position , then your arguement of disproving it by presenting it as an arguement that does not make sense is wrong by default.
But the thing is it is not just wrong but it is an obvious strawman and a waste of time for me , to disprove it.




Now let's see what i wrote.



Prostate exam , that is done i imagine by a doctor putting an object or his finger in your butt. Which is "Sexual" in nature. But as i said it is not considered sexual abuse.


The free pass here is to again make it obvious that i am talking about actions "Sexual " in nature , though it may be hard to define the range of actions we should include in it (And that is the only thing you should have said against my arguement and not the strawman) . And as i said some actions may get a free pass.

Also the doctor does not do it to impose his will to you , or as a symbol of punishment. If you sexually abuse someone to discipline them into obeying you then you don't get such a free pass. Because it is done from one Human to an other so he can impose his will on him or punish him. It is sexual in nature and it is abuse. Whether you think sexual abuse is effective that is an other matter but i believe by definition is neither effective not humane.



And finally i say that some "sexual" actions that are done to impose one's will on an other or to punish them , "Do not get a free pass " are not in the same category as Prostate examination that is done by the consent of all parties.


You can dispute how much "Sexual" in nature is spanking , but not the abuse part. Thankfully several countries had the wisdom to make it illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking


So please avoid wasting ones time by misinterpreting there position. If it was not on purpose please consider thinking more your response.


But it must be ! After all i said that prison terms for convicts is sexual abuse !!

After all you've wrote, I'm unfortunately still not clear on your position - you seem to have merely reiterated it rather than answering my criticism in a way that would draw into focus the part where we disagree. I suspect that you first consider physical discipline of children to be 'abuse' and then the fact that it is pain applied to what is an erogenous zone post-puberty to make it 'sexual' abuse.

 

[Truronian]

Do you think your kids will do what you think they are doing all the time?

Generally yes, unless they can mimic the noise a car garage makes.

A 1 year old is pretty easy to keep track of. Wait until they are more mobile. You generally dont see that much defiant behavior until the 'terrible twos'

He pretty dang mobile at the moment, he can run at my walking pace. I expect my mother might see the terrible twos at little early in him, as there is a new baby in the house to steal away some of the attention.

Thats not how kids think. If you smack them for going near the cabinet and are consisnt they will get the message 'stay away from the cabinet'.

I'll give you that one.

Wrong. Little kids trust their parents implicitly. You are all they know. They dont associate the smacking with you, they associate it with their behavior at the time.

We don't know what they associate it with, because we're not children.

 

[classical_hero]

Since i don't have a child I think it is best that i allow a different authority to speak for me instead.
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
I would say that that is the first and most important step in having a child when you are looking after them.
Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
The Rod is also something that cn be use for comfort, as David say in his famous 23rd Psalm. Psalm 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Why is that since correct discipline is something that is used to stop you from harming yourself. Sure it does hurt when it is administered, but it hurts much less than what would had their been no control allowed.

Ephesians 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The most important part of discipline is that to nurture them into the right path and not allow them to become unruly. Spanking is a part of good discipline, but not the only part of good discipline.

I also like how so many people equate spanking with violence. Violence has only one purpose and that is to destroy, whereas spanking has a purpose of instruction and nurture, which is the exact opposite of violence.

 

[Oruc]

I was spanked once and it was enough to make sure I didn't step out of line again

 

[Millman]

Everyone is different so how can you know what to do?

This is the trick with kids and people in general. Finding out what works and what doesn't.

 

[scy12]

After all you've wrote, I'm unfortunately still not clear on your position - you seem to have merely reiterated it rather than answering my criticism in a way that would draw into focus the part where we disagree. I suspect that you first consider physical discipline of children to be 'abuse' and then the fact that it is pain applied to what is an erogenous zone post-puberty to make it 'sexual' abuse.

You have not provided any criticism to my views rather a misinterpretation of my views.

I consider violence to be abusive behavior , and spanking "sexual" in nature due to it's nature. Read what i said about a Free pass again. Where do you stand in that ? Do you agree or are you again going to claim that i am speaking about Prison sentences.

 

[Abaddon]

Spanking kids should be a last resort, but it should be there, as a threat.

I was only ever spanked twice, no real harm, but I certainly knew where the line was.


Then again, my upbringing meant I never was much trouble anyway. Its the bad parents to see, yelling at their kids to shut up, and repeatedly spanking them thats a problem.


A Real threat, RARE.

..............................................


Oh, and under no circumstances should one hit a partner (unless consensual :yawn: )

Kids are learning right from wrong, adults are just being hurt.


Also, domestic abuse is rarely a few slaps to the bum!

 

[Brighteye]

Not so, but if you wish to misconstrue everything...there is little I can do to stop you.

It's odd that you say "even a small child is not that stupid" and yet still expect children to learn in some sort of animalistic, Pavlovian way.

It's hardly a strange and odd thing to assume, given how heated some people are getting, to think that rather than suggesting that some few people are embarrassed about the possibility of having been mistreated (something I wouldn't consider embarrassing at all) you were actually saying that everyone who has been spanked 'is obliged to defend the [nasty] practice'. Sure, you didn't state the reason for the obligation, but you didn't give any clue about what you actually thought, and nor did you state that it might not be everyone: you simply it said 'the people who were spanked'. If it's unreasonable to interpret that as applying to the people who were spanked, I'm sorry.

I don't see any oddity in stating, as a proven fact, that children and animals are not as stupid as was suggested, and then expecting children to learn in a manner that we know animals do.

 

[IglooDame]

You have not provided any criticism to my views rather a misinterpretation of my views.

What you misinterpret as a misinterpretation is that I note other actions which your definition (and I use that term very loosely here) of "sexual abuse" would seem to include. As yet all I've been able to make out is that they get a Free Pass, the standard of issue for which you haven't managed to clarify for me.

I consider violence to be abusive behavior , and spanking "sexual" in nature due to it's nature. Read what i said about a Free pass again. Where do you stand in that ? Do you agree or are you again going to claim that i am speaking about Prison sentences.

Your argument would seem to be circular here: spanking is sexual in nature due to it's (sexual) nature.

But anyway, let's go down the rabbit hole regarding your Free Pass:

The free pass here is to again make it obvious that i am talking about actions "Sexual " in nature , though it may be hard to define the range of actions we should include in it (And that is the only thing you should have said against my arguement and not the strawman) . And as i said some actions may get a free pass.

What's your precise basis for actions getting a free pass with respect to being labeled sexual abuse or not, please?

 

[scy12]

What you misinterpret as a misinterpretation is that I note other actions which your definition (and I use that term very loosely here) of "sexual abuse" would seem to include. As yet all I've been able to make out is that they get a Free Pass, the standard of issue for which you haven't managed to clarify for me.



Your argument would seem to be circular here: spanking is sexual in nature due to it's (sexual) nature.

But anyway, let's go down the rabbit hole regarding your Free Pass:



What's your precise basis for actions getting a free pass with respect to being labeled sexual abuse or not, please?

What you misinterpret as a misinterpretation is that I note other actions which your definition (and I use that term very loosely here) of "sexual abuse" would seem to include. As yet all I've been able to make out is that they get a Free Pass, the standard of issue for which you haven't managed to clarify for me.

Then you must be lying (for creating an impression) because my definition of what sexual abuse is or anything in particular never included , completly irrelevant , and i find this an insult to intelligence (not mine) that you think that under my "definition"

#1 - Parents that do it, logically consider it necessary. I've never met a parent that spanked their children despite considering it unnecessary.

#2 - Police arresting someone and putting them in handcuffs is now sexual abuse? Or is it "necessary"?

#3 - Prison terms for convicts is now sexual abuse? Or is that too "necessary"?

What i consider amazing is that you kept singing into that tune , when after my explanations you should have stopped.

Your argument would seem to be circular here: spanking is sexual in nature due to it's (sexual) nature.

But anyway, let's go down the rabbit hole regarding your Free Pass:

My arguement here is not circular because i do not make an arguement. Red is Red because is Red. That is a claim. I am saying sexual abuse like spanking is , for example bad. If one asks then if under my definition of what red is i believe that Aliens exist and where blue uniforms i will just repeat my claim and in addition wonder about how that person was lead to that thought process. If one will wonder whether what i consider as Sexual abuse , is sexual abuse , then he can do it with a straight face and not inditectly so i know what he is talking about. If you see my first post , i did say back then that the only think you can question is how we determine what is sexual and what is not. I will do it on my own initiative even though this is not the point of our """arguement"""

I assume you know that spanking is often used during Sex , as a Sexual action. It is done by hitting someone in the Butt and that area of the Human body is again connected with Sex.

Though you could put it in the category of "fetish" and make another broad generalization , but i hope that you will not , because it is not just a fetish.

So please stop singing that tune , get off your high horse , and if you wish to discuss something or anything start doing it.

What's your precise basis for actions getting a free pass with respect to being labeled sexual abuse or not, please?

Well if you quote something and then you ask a question which was attempted to be answered to that post then what are you doing wrong ?

Or maybe you are doing it right , but you are method is to selectively quote , act like the other guy does not know what he is talking about ?

From my experience people like almost methodically to "play ignorant".

Here is what i previously wrote.


The free pass here is to again make it obvious that i am talking about actions "Sexual " in nature , though it may be hard to define the range of actions we should include in it (And that is the only thing you should have said against my arguement and not the strawman) . And as i said some actions may get a free pass.

Prostate exam , that is done i imagine by a doctor putting an object or his finger in your butt. Which is "Sexual" in nature. But as i said it is not considered sexual abuse.
Quote:
It is necessary. Because it is done for health reasons it gets a free pass.


Also the doctor does not do it to impose his will to you , or as a symbol of punishment. If you sexually abuse someone to discipline them into obeying you then you don't get such a free pass. Because it is done from one Human to an other so he can impose his will on him or punish him. It is sexual in nature and it is abuse. Whether you think sexual abuse is effective that is an other matter but i believe by definition is neither effective not humane.

 

[GenMarshall]

Spanking your children is a sign that you cannot think of any other non violent ways to discipline your children.

 

[Brighteye]

Spanking your children is a sign that you cannot think of any other non violent ways to discipline your children.

Have you read the thread? Or did you feel like making an entirely unsupported statement just for the fun of it?

If spanking my children is outlawed by the time I have some, I will pay other children to administer it for me under contract, since they will always be allowed to get away with it.