spanking kids; what do you think?

[Goldiegirl]

I just read an interesting article on spanking children. It wasn't pro or anti spanking per se, but just reported some facts that these researchers had found with regards to spanking kids. Basically by spanking they meant specifically a swat with an open hand on a clothed rear end, and not hard enough to leave bruises or marks. So what it came down to is this, spanking didn't seem to be detrimental to kids between the ages of 2 and 7, earlier and the child doesn't understand and later it's more humiliation. I came from a relatively spank free house. My mom just followed through on her threats. If she said you have to the count of three to pick up your toys or I will throw them out, trust me, they went into the trash and that was that. I think that method worked very well because she was consistent. I do remember getting a smack on the had for touching stuff in stores. I would like to know how discipline is done in other countries, cultures and states. Are you for or against spanking? I am undecided myself as there are kids who I have run across in stores and on planes that I would have gladly smacked (their parents too!).

[Derfel]

Well, My parents didn't spank me only like once or twice when I was still in first or second class or something. Anyway, personally I say if the kid is an ill bred little maggot who pretends to be dumb, spank it.
In my opinion it doesn't matter what the kid does, let him behave as he wants, only discipline him when he isn't doing something with spine. Let him lie, beat up other kids, let him do it all, if he in turn gets beaten by brats his age its fine, but adults going around and deciding whether kids should pester each other is wrong.
Don't force stupid rules on kids. Most schools destroy the personality of kids early on, pedagogically they're worse than what their parents could offer. Also, get rid of some crappy teachers as well. Quality over quantity please.
Honestly I had a teacher in elementary school that told my mother that I cannot be taught because of my hybrid blood, simply because im neither Armenian nor Hungarian. Yeah, very much sense there.
Oh yes, yes, yes, yes kids telling on each other... now thats disgusting, those brats deserve a good strong beating from anyone, but if at all possible from everyone.

[Mitsuo]

I believe there is already a thread about this. However, I will answer. I don't believe in spanking. Hitting is hitting whether it's the face or the bum.

[Goldiegirl]

If there is a thread I didn't see it....sorry....

thanks for you reply.

[nice gaijin]

spare the rod and spoil the child. It's when people neglect to draw the line between discipline and abuse that trouble arises; either kids get beaten, or people shy away from all forms of corporal punishment, resulting in the ill-behaved public nightmares we see at the grocery store.

[Mitsuo]

If there is a thread I didn't see it....sorry....

thanks for you reply.


It's alright, it was an older thread so it's nice to have it brought up again for other opinions.

[Goldiegirl]

I know most parents around here use "time outs" they put the naughty kid in a chair or something of the sort and make them settle down. While I understand that you get the kid to settle down, I just don't think it should me the mainstay of discipline. At the store when the kid won't put down the glass bottle of spaghetti sauce after the 10th time of being told, threatening a time out when you get home is not solving the issue at hand. (true story of the sauce, the kid then just let go and dropped it on the ground and it splattered everywhere) I wonder if he actually even got a time out at home? I would've gotten my hand smacked and my mom would've left the cart full of groceries at the store and we would've gotten nothing.

[karlyboo]

I was spanked rather hard as a child, for failure as well as ignorance, which is not a nice experience.

That said I believe a small amount of physical force can be necessary in controlling younger children. Reasoning with a petulant three year old is pretty much a non-starter in my experience so (i hesitate to emphasise) gentle tap can make the point that simply 'No means no'.

That said I would argue consistency of discipline is more important than using physical force. Most problem families I've seen or read about suffer from a total lack of consistency and spend most of their time undermining themselves.

[justin]

I was spanked as a child and I will do the same with my kids. The only time I will spank will be when it is really needed.

[scorpion da black]

spanking can be used to force discipline on a child ..
humans are beings who are lead by motivation or fear of punishment...
as all criminals try not to get caught fearing punishment ..and as all workers are motivated to give greater work...

when i say spanking it is hitting as humiliation or to make the child understand that a certain matter is not accepted...not spanking as in " violent abuse "

a child is not capable to understand argument and conversation..that is why punishment will make him realize that " a certain matter will get me punished so it is wrong..dont do "

but when a child grows to be a teenager..use motivation ... hence teenagers like to be treated as grown ups and like to be appreciated..
so teenagers should be taught right from wrong through conversation not spanking ..because they are capable to understand ethics and morals..

using motivation and punishment is the greatest way to raise a healthy citizen not only in raising children..but even in raising adults :p ..as we all know in corporate life when an employee does a great job he is rewarded as a motivation ..and when he messes up he is punished...

i was raised in this punishment and motivation code..and i think i grew up as a civilized person who respects laws and regulations....

[pugtm]

pain and humilation is one of the most effective ways of teaching a human being since it is natures way of telling you something is wrong. now of course it needs to be mixed in with some other more creative punishments but it is entirely correct and it works. try being belted sometime and then tell me if you are willing to misbehave after that..

[Doc]

pain and humilation is one of the most effective ways of teaching a human being since it is natures way of telling you something is wrong. now of course it needs to be mixed in with some other more creative punishments but it is entirely correct and it works. try being belted sometime and then tell me if you are willing to misbehave after that..
Wow...I never knew there were people in our nation's youth who actually believe in discipline. :souka:
Kudos to you! :cool:
-Doc :wave:

[Goldiegirl]

I don't think you should ever hit a child with enough force to leave a mark. I wouldn't even hit my animals! I don't know if I could actually hit my (potential) child. I know how I feel when other peoples kids are really misbehaving! I don't think humiliation is the best route to go with discipline. I think to make a child feel shame or remorse for doing something wrong is acceptable, but not humiliation. Maybe it's just the choice of words there. I can't say with 100 percent certainty that I won't spank, I just think it would be the last route I would take. I am also not a fan of yelling at kids. I just hate it when parents scream louder and louder at their kids and the kids don't blink an eye and don't stop the behaviour, but they keep on a yellin'. The kids soon learn that when there parents yell they can ignore them as nothing happens. I was thinking back about being a kid and getting into trouble and I can say that I wasn't spanked, however I did get my face slapped when I was around 16 and called my mom a really nasty name...I never did that again!

[Derfel]

try being belted sometime and then tell me if you are willing to misbehave after that..


If my parents tried to do that... I'd go and report it, if they've got the cash to pay as compensation, cool, I volunteer for it.
Pain and humiliation leads nowhere, I'd just hate the person, and do anything the cross his every plan.

[Revenant]

I think that there are times that spanking is necessary. My son had a difficult time not scratching the faces of other kids that made him angry when he was three and four years old. That was a concern, as his scratches a couple of times scraped the edges of other kid's eyes. We tried talking to him about other ways to deal with his anger, and we roleplayed that, but when he got angry, all that was forgotten, and finally we told him that the next time he scratched someone's face, we would have to spank him. He lost his temper, and as usual made a grab for the other kid's face, so I spanked him. I spanked him twice, but the third time he remembered that he would be spanked and he was able to restrain himself.

Nothing else worked, and time outs would've come too late (after he had already gone for someone's face with his 'claws'). It's not a good idea to spank out of anger, and it's not the first option I would choose to employ (communicating is ideal, and better when it works), but a few situations I feel do call for spankings.

[kairu]

I think to make a child feel shame or remorse for doing something wrong is acceptable, but not humiliation.

I think I agree with this. As for spanking, I kept going back and forth on where I stand in regard to it as I read these responses, but I'm pretty sure that, if I ever found myself in a situation in which I needed to make the decision: spank or don't spank?... I wouldn't. It's just another form of violence and, even though it teaches that one will be punished for one's wrongdoings, it also supports the idea that violence is okay in some situations (which, whether it is or isn't okay, it isn't really a discussion for this thread... or is it? haha).

My dad used to spank when I was very young. My relationship with my dad now is not a direct result of his spanking, but it might say something about his character, and I do not keep contact with him now, whatsoever.

I've experienced both physical and nonphysical punishment, though, as my mom did not spank. Still, she made you feel pretty bad when you did something wrong. Just the use of emotions and guilt can be a very effective punishment, and that brings me back to Goldiegirl's comment, with which I agree, that making a child feel shame or remorse is acceptable as punishment (and, in my opinion, enough).

[Revenant]

Violence usually implies anger or hatred, I don't know that all spankings would be driven by either of those. Every child is different, and for some shame and remorse work quite well, in which case I would say going as far as spanking wouldn't be necessary.

If you read my post, at least I felt that something swift and quite memorable was necessary to help my son restrain himself. He didn't respond well to other methods, and I didn't feel we could afford to work gradually through other methods, especially since we weren't always there when he went for other kid's faces, and understandably, some other kid's mothers were upset when there kids came home with scratches at the edges of their eyes.

My father spanked me a few times, but I knew why I was getting spanked, and he always did that calmly (not out of uncontrolled anger). I have a reasonably good relationship with my father.

[Goldiegirl]

Yeah, I don't think you can always reason with 3 year old. Scratching other kids faces isn't something that you can be patient with for very long, it's just not acceptable, or safe. I understand your decision Revenant, it was as much for your child as it was for the others he was hurting.

[Mars Man]

As just about all, if not all, on this thread have expressed knowledge of, there is no one size fits all here.

The points I have always tried to keep in mind while raising my three boys had been to refrain from spanking when in the heat of anger while they were at the age, and in situations where spanking was most likely the best way to alter a negative disposition. My spankings never amounted to violence, I am quite certain.

Along with that, however, after a spanking had 'settled in' (usually within a number 10s of minutes) I would talk to them about it in a loving and caring way, spend some time (as often as I actually could) with them alone, and provide a window for some positive action--giving them a chance to 'cover the negative with a positive.' I would then reward them for the positive. (I tried to be as consistent as I could with this, but was not perfect....however never took action in anger)

From about the age of 10, I no longer gave spankings but tried to make more use of teaching and reasoning, along with positive reinforcement. I worked at always trying to present myself as a friend to them...rather than as being someone 'above' them. Also, the times that I had later found that I had falsely accused them, or had yelled at them in a spark of loss of control, I always made it a point to apologize...and even do that now...while they are in their teens. Being an example really helps too, I'm sure.

Just like Goldiegirl's mother, giving exact explanations of what course of action you will take if your children (within a given age range) take or fail to take some other course of action, and then sticking to that consistently is a very good way of directing them in a certain direction. This is a somewhat supported technique by psychologists.

One more thing to keep in mind, though...just because a couple become parents, does not mean that they are good at parenting. It is a feat, and and a pretty much full time job.

[Goldiegirl]

A full-time job forever at that! You are always a parent no matter how old your children are! That is scary to me! I think you had a nice balance with your parenting Mars Man. Consistency, seems like it is an important point with kids and discipline. Maybe that is the hard part, like when you are tired and just don't want all the fuss, you might be prone to give in...

[yumeitsumo]

I don't like spanking. It's bad. I don't like it at all. I get scared. I never want to be hit. I get really scared when my mom pretends like she's going to hit me. :( one time in a store she did that and I got so scared I pushed her into a rack.

[Goldiegirl]

So you are afraid of being hit yet you pushed (physically touched) your mother back? If she has only ever pretended what made you think she was going to hit you? I am interested to know.

opps...I wanted to add that I think there is a big difference between spanking a child ( approx. ages 3-to perhaps 10) than to hitting a teenager. I don't think spanking a teenager is going to work. Hitting to me implies anger, and retaliation. I know it's all words.

[yumeitsumo]

Yes, I physically pushed her. I get scared! I felt bad...

[Goldiegirl]

So if you get scared it's ok to push and if you scare your mom with your behaviour? I can say that my mom slapped me on the face when I was 16 for calling her a really, really bad name. I didn't push her back, but I didn't call her a name ever again, well out loud! :) But, what I want to know is did your mom ever spank you or hit you, or did she just threaten. I think you can't just threaten your kids, there has to be follow through, as Mars Man pointed out, consistency. Perhaps, if you had been spanked as a little kid you would have realized that it wasn't as much painful as it was a way to make you feel remorse, you wouldn't be so scared. Maybe you are scared of the unknown? But really, I think at 16 spanking is ridiculous. I deserved what I got at that age, but overall you should be able to talk with a teenager and use other means to punish or discipline, for instance, no driver's license, no cell phone, etc. I used to get my horse privileges taken away...no riding was the worst punishment ever! It was pure torture.

[Derfel]

No riding can be a massive punishment, because you can't hide a horse, but there are things you can do without getting caught.
I used to play until late at night when I was smaller... so my parents told me to get the hell away from the pc and get some sleep. Now you're asking what happened? I went into my room, hanged clothes above my window and played with my PS2 until I dropped dead.
Obviously I wouldn't do that now, but at that time no reasoning worked. Guess what solved the issue!
My parents nagged me so much, that in the end I realized that going through all that stuff was too much of a burden, also, I realized that its a pain to go to school after having slept 4 hours, so in the end it was time that solved it all and not spanking or anything like it. The best method for disciplining a brat is to wait until he grows out of it.

[Goldiegirl]

I can just picture you hiding underneath your covers, your window covered up by clothes and your thumbs madly tapping away at your PS2 with a wicked grin on your face knowing you had beat your parents! :) Troublemaker!

As I got older and my mom had less control, she would tell me this..."Do as you see fit, but you will pay the consequences." Basically it went down like this. I am going to a Madonna concert on a school night. Mom say's no, I say well you can't stop me, then I get the "Do as you see fit...." lecture. I go to the concert, the next day I have to take the bus to school because I can't use the car and no money for riding lessons that week. So I learned to way the consequences to my actions...is doing A going to be worth no having B or C? It made me think, that's for sure.

[Derfel]

Thats exactly it, you learn for your own actions and mistakes.
If you would have listened to your mother the first time, probably you would have went the second time right? So it would be the same anyway, after all there are things that cannot be avoided.
So why not do them when you want to, when it feels the best?
I mean, say, you decided you're going to the Madonna concert, you probably know that you will have to face discomfort later on, and once you experienced it all, you will be able to decide more easily for the second time.
It would be wrong for other people to decide in such situations, it is ones preference, someone older and more experienced may be able to decide what is best for a person, but not on what he likes more.
May I ask, in the end what have you felt? About you decision I mean.

[Goldiegirl]

Well, the concert was terrible...Madonna wasn't all that great. It wasn't worth it in the end! I lost a week of riding lessons and I couldn't drive the car to school so I had to take the bus *GASP*, for a week as well. Taking the bus when you had your drivers license was probably the worst because everyone on the bus knew you were punished.

[Derfel]

Hmm, self humiliation? Thats another form of punishment I just found out about.
But hey, you went to the concert you wanted. You traveled to a neighboring town or did the concert take place in yours? I mean, traveling with friends can often be more interesting than the purpose of the trip.

[Goldiegirl]

Well it was at an outdoor amphitheater called Alpine Valley and it was around an hour and 15 minutes away. It was known (still is!) for alcohol, drugs (marijuana mainly), and well, sex. It's a wild place to have concerts. We did have fun, but not because of the music, that's for sure! :) And yes, I went on to see many more concerts there, but found creative ways to "not" tell my mom where I was or what I was doing! We used to drive down to Chicago...but that's a whole 'nother story! And yes, your friends knowing you were in trouble did make it worse!

[Han Chan]

Those who spank their children, should be spanked themselves. That is, unless they are masochists, because then they would enjoy it!
:-)

Let me try to be serious: Actually in my country it is illegal to spank the kids, if you do spank them, the authorities might forcefully remove the child from its violent environment.
:wave:

[Goldiegirl]

I would have a problem with the government dictating too much on how to raise my kids. Abuse is one thing a swat on the behind or getting a hand slapped is absolutely no reason to remove a child from their home. Seems like the government is overstepping here.

[Doc]

The government would like to pass a law to fine and possibly jail parents who buy their 17 year old a mature rated video game. They claim it is to empower parents, yet in reality they wanted to control them instead. Isn't the progressive movement so open, rosy, and filled with toleration?

:okashii:

-Doc :wave:

[Goldiegirl]

You know, I would hope that parents wouldn't buy video games that aren't rated for their 17 year olds or under kids but of course that is their choice. I just don't know how the government could enforce that; how do they know who you are buying the video game for? Jeez, that is really useless.

[Doc]

It's called power and breaking down the rights of the people. Didn't you know that's the whole goal of the progessive movement? (I really feel bad for true liberals who get clumped together with that crowd.)

-Doc :wave:

[Goldiegirl]

You know I hate to admit it, but I really didn't pay much attention with too much that dealt with raising children, so your post surprised me. We are finally going to try and have a baby and now that we are, I am definitely more in tune with what is going on with children and such. It's overwhelming with all the different opinions, but the US government is not a place that I would go and look for pointers on raising anything and especially my own child! Thanks for the post. :)

[pugtm]

Wow...I never knew there were people in our nation's youth who actually believe in discipline. :souka:
Kudos to you! :cool:
-Doc :wave:
of course i hate all those flabby faced people with blank eyes that never take responsibility or who don't try to improve themselves. rotten culture thats what it is. american culture is in a rut and needs to pull itself out. but i was raised outside of it so i was spared most of the mindlessness of it.

[pugtm]

I don't think you should ever hit a child with enough force to leave a mark. I wouldn't even hit my animals! I don't know if I could actually hit my (potential) child. I know how I feel when other peoples kids are really misbehaving! I don't think humiliation is the best route to go with discipline. I think to make a child feel shame or remorse for doing something wrong is acceptable, but not humiliation. Maybe it's just the choice of words there. I can't say with 100 percent certainty that I won't spank, I just think it would be the last route I would take. I am also not a fan of yelling at kids. I just hate it when parents scream louder and louder at their kids and the kids don't blink an eye and don't stop the behaviour, but they keep on a yellin'. The kids soon learn that when there parents yell they can ignore them as nothing happens. I was thinking back about being a kid and getting into trouble and I can say that I wasn't spanked, however I did get my face slapped when I was around 16 and called my mom a really nasty name...I never did that again!

here's the thing at a young age children are not yet capable of understanding fully all the implications of moral actions, however all animals understand pain. let me give an example in my life. when i was around three or four i started playing around with candles that were lit for a jewish holiday. my mother seeing me do it understood that to make me understand the danger she would have to let me get burned, so she took my finger and put it close enough that it hurt and held it there for a second. i of course got angry for a while but even today i am much more carefull with fire as compared to other people and even my sisters who for reasons unknown didn't get this kind of training. kids understand that pain is natures way of saying something is wrong and to stop doing it. same thing with hitting people, a three year old cannot conceive of another persons pain but understands what it means to get hit back, its a case of operand conditioning if you will.

[Goldiegirl]

I understand exactly what you are say pugtm. You can't reason with a 3 year old, it just isn't going to work. You can take the child away from a situation though, and yep you can spank, or slap their hand. I can understand both sides though. I don't spank my pets, and you can't reason with a pet either, so I can't say that just because you can't reason with a child means you need to hit that child. I am neither for or against spanking, I really think it will depend on the situation for me. What I do know is that there are way too many bratty, out of control kids around. I wonder if it is because parents are over indulgent or lenient because both parents work or they are single parent homes? The other thing that is frustrating to me is when parents want to be their kids friends. Parents are there to raise kids to be respectable, self supporting, adults. I don't think you can be a friend and a parent, at least when the child is growing up. My mom and I still have difficulty with that boundary. I want her more as a friend and she can't see me as anything but her child. Ahh...the trouble of it all....

[Mars Man]

don't think you can be a friend and a parent, at least when the child is growing up.

This would depend on how we were to define or describe just what the term 'friend' would mean in this circumstance, would it not? I have tried (as stated earlier) to be friends with my kids, but of course that would not mean in exactly the same manner as one would expect of their friends from school or whatever.

The impetus for this concept, is that in the end, while yes, as you have wisely said...not a single one of us living on the earth today is not a child, we are all individual people. My children are individual people too, and in making an effort to maintain balance with that outlook along with the usual hiearchal parent/child relationship, calls for a degree of friendship too.

[pugtm]

I really think it will depend on the situation for me.
this is truly the answer since all events in your childs li8fe need to be dealt with on a case to case basis. just make sure your response is consistent.

What I do know is that there are way too many bratty, out of control kids around. I wonder if it is because parents are over indulgent or lenient because both parents work or they are single parent homes?
the two may be connected, as long as your child knows you are involved and you aren't lazy and just give in to his whining and tantrums, he will know you are the boss.

[Goldiegirl]

Yes Mars Man, the word and meaning of friend are vast. It's hard to put it into words, but I think you got the point, it shouldn't be the same manner as their school friends or friends their age. Yes of course you are friends in so much as you love your kids and like to do stuff with them, but your main goal isn't to be their friend it's to be their parent and guide them. Ok, it's hard to put into words because friend is the only word to use here and it gets a little tricky. I am friends with my mom but it is not the same relationship that I have with my "real" or non-parent friends. Can I make this anymore confusing? Sorry! I certainly wasn't friends with my mom when I was a teenager. Granted we did some stuff together and had a good time, but she wasn't the top on my list to do stuff with!

[Mars Man]

Yes, Goldiegirl, I think you have put it rather well there. I could only detail it by highlighting some of the factors that one could expect in a parent/child friendship relation.

One is being able to take the child at his or her level of thinking and operation--without expecting more from that than is realistic. (yes, it's a bit of a value judgement call) Another is being able to share emotionally with the child--empathy. That would make it just as easy to apologize to the child as it would be to demand an apology from the child. It would involve a being involved with things the child is involved in to some degree--even if that simply meant going deep enough so as to try and understand. Also, it would mean introspective thinking along the lines of putting yourself in your child's position based on recollecting (as objectively as possible) events in your own childhood, soely so as to understand.

I guess the main thing would be not always projecting the image of being aloof or 'above' the child--especially after the age of 10 or so. (but that also depends on a number of possible variants)

[JasonS]

When used sparingly and at the right time/place, I think spanking is ok.

I'm sure we've all seen or heard of parents who spank for almost no reason. This quickly becomes meaningless to the child because any tiny thing they do that the parents think is wrong is going to result in a spanking. Makes the parents look like terrible people too.

On the other hand, as several people have mentioned, trying to use logic with a toddler just isn't going to cut it when trying to explain right and wrong.

When my brother and I were growing up, we would occasionally get a spanking with a wooden spoon. It was never done so hard that we were bruised or left unable to sit down, and it was never a bare-bottom spanking, but it certainly got the point across that we had messed up. I'm sure anyone who used a wooden mixing spoon to spank their child today would be reported to child protective services (or some other government agency), but my brother and I turned out just fine. We were pretty well behaved though, so punishments of any kind were rare.

The spankings with the spoon ended when we actually took the spoon away from my mom one day. We were still pretty young, but we got big at early ages. At that point, it became "wait 'til your dad gets home" (he didn't need the spoon), or we lost things like TV, toys, play-time with friends, etc. Getting grounded was probably worse than a spanking because it usually lasted a week or two as opposed to the brief sting of a swat on the rump.

I now have a 5 year old son of my own. To my knowledge, he's never warranted a spanking (he lives with his mom, so I'm not with him 24/7). The threat of a time-out usually works to straighten him up, so actually having to sit in the corner is unusual. The only physical punishment I've ever seen with him was a smack on the hand when he was really acting up at the dinner table. It wasn't a hard smack at all, but it was such a shock to him that the misbehaving ceased immediately.

Like several people have said though, dealing with kids is going to be different for everyone, and what works for some won't work for all. I'm hoping my son stays well behaved, but we'll see what happens in the years to come.

Good luck!

(and thanks for starting a thread to which I feel I can possibly contribute) :-)

[pugtm]

the best advice in this(any really) situation is use your head and improvise. think before you act but act decisively and with authority. you have the job of moral guide for your child's formative years. you are also provider, jury, judge, executioner, societal filter, social filter, and bunch of other things. using reason is the number 1 thing you can do to make your life easier. i have an anecdote but im too tired so ill write it tommorow.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

The best method for disciplining a brat is to wait until he grows out of it.



Um i don't agree with that at all. Some people never grow out of stuff like that, you see some little kids act like little bastards when they're young, then when they grow up they still act like bastards when they're teenagers or adults and don't have any respect for the law, their parents, and many people in general etc.

Rules need to be enforced early on as a lot of kids don't grow out of bad behavior- take my brother for example, he was a right little terror when he was little, always throwing temper tantrums and destroying things etc, my mum didn't really know how to discipline him and rarely ever attempted to, and now my brother has grown up with a "i don't care how you feel or what you think, i'm going to do what i want regardless" attitude.
Thing is though, he's now 23 years old and is wasting his youth not doing anything with his life (he lives at home with his mum, does a weekend job at a supermarket and spends his life sleeping or sitting at the computer on the internet. He doesn't drive, doesn't go out socialising, has no real motivation etc and this is all he has done for years and years now- everyone (including me) is telling him to get off his bum and start doing something with his life, he's got lots of money and has no commitments so nothings holding him back so its not exactly like he can use such things as excuses- but as ever, he doesn't listen to nobody, he just does what he wants to do and IMHO (although i hate to say it) what he is doing is being lazy.
I think if my mother had actually imposed a proper system of discipline and consistant set of rules on him when he was a child, he would have probably grown up to have a more considerate attitude of other people's opinions and feelings etc, he would probably be doing more with his life right now if he had been taught how to do it and why he should do it when he was a child etc.

My brother is a good guy, but i do get at my wits end with him sometimes when it comes to stuff like this, nobody seems to be able to get through to him and he doesn't seem to understand what he is missing out on in life- he also seems to be becomming more and more isolated and less in tune with reality etc too (not in a crazy/mad way or anything like that etc, just like his social skills can be pretty poor for his age, he says things sometimes in general conversation with other people that are very offensive to people and he doesn't seem to care or notice etc).


Anyhoo...

I got smacked on the bum plenty of times when i was a kid and it helped teach me back then that bad behaviour would be punished if i pushed my mother enough.

I begin to tire of this 60's hippie politically correct sh*t, we are living in an age that is becomming so nuts and overly politically correct, parents and teachers and pretty much everyone can't do hardly anything at all without getting sued or sent to jail for it etc. I don't think spanking kids is correct as a form of punishment in all situations, but at the end of the day most parents have the common sense on how to do it properly and when to do it etc, so in a lot of situations i agree with it and i think parents should have the right to spank their kids- kids aren't innocent all the time, sometimes they can be very cunning and many will emotionally blackmail or con their parents into doing things for them when they can. Sometimes kids do need to be spanked in various situations and put back in their place when they refuse to listen to reason and are repeatedly and deliberately very naughty/bad especially when they know and fully understand that what they are doing is very bad and is completely against their parents wishes/rules etc.

[Goldiegirl]

Tokis-Phoenix brought up a good point with the politically correct issue. Parents, teachers have to be careful with what they say or do, because people are quick to judge. I think there isn't one style of parenting that will work for every child. This also reminded me that when I was in school everything was about keeping kids self esteem high at all costs. Like if you did something bad, rather than getting into trouble and made to feel guilt, you were to be praised and reassured that you are still a good person. If you lost it wasn't about winning we are all winners even if we loose. Well then what is the point of a competition? You should be a gracious looser, but if you are going to compete it should be to win! We used to all get blue ribbons (red for first in the UK I think) in our spelling contests at school, so we could all feel good. I still knew I didn't deserve it!

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Tokis-Phoenix brought up a good point with the politically correct issue. Parents, teachers have to be careful with what they say or do, because people are quick to judge. I think there isn't one style of parenting that will work for every child. This also reminded me that when I was in school everything was about keeping kids self esteem high at all costs. Like if you did something bad, rather than getting into trouble and made to feel guilt, you were to be praised and reassured that you are still a good person. If you lost it wasn't about winning we are all winners even if we loose. Well then what is the point of a competition? You should be a gracious looser, but if you are going to compete it should be to win! We used to all get blue ribbons (red for first in the UK I think) in our spelling contests at school, so we could all feel good. I still knew I didn't deserve it!



Yeah i totally agree with you, so much of this politically correct stuff contradicts itself in one way or another, and while it pretends to stand for progress, in the end i feel we often take a step backwards when all of this political correctness gets too extreme.
Everyone's so scared of offending other people and each other now days, we're told we equal but then we're told that every individual is different and not the same as the next, if a white person calls a black person a niger its seen as terribly rascist but if a black person calls another black person a niger its seen as acceptable (actually hang on, isn't it now not politically correct to call black people "black people" now days? Don't we have to start calling them african americans now or something like that?), christmas decorations are banned from offices because bosses are scared of offending other religions (i mean, WTF? christianity is our countries main religion, we should be allowed to openly celebrate it!) etc...

And don't get me started on the madness of Health & Safety rules and regulations now days, stories like this just bewilder me;

"A council has cordoned off pear trees in a public park over fears falling fruit could land on someone's head";

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/5403886.stm



:angryfire: :mad: !!!


Parents should have the right to spank their children within reason- i don't think a parent is committing "child abuse" on their child when they give their child a light smack on the bum because their child is throwing a temper tantrum in the supermarket and throwing themselves on the floor and screaming and pulling things off the shops shelves because their mummy or daddy won't buy them some sweats or a new barbie doll or whatever. Of course though these PC activists would probably prefer to have such a parent sent to court and fined and forced to do community service for "abusing" and infringing on the freedom and rights of their child in such a way ("rolls eyes").

[Skullcrushergurl]

My family believes in spankings. I don't. Sometimes if a parent is really angered and they decide to spank a child, it could get worse and cross the line of abuse. If you raise your child the right way, you won't have to spank them.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

My family believes in spankings. I don't. Sometimes if a parent is really angered and they decide to spank a child, it could get worse and cross the line of abuse. If you raise your child the right way, you won't have to spank them.



The parent isn't spanking the child because they are angry and are simply venting out their anger on the child (which is just wrong), they are spanking the child because despite all of the parents efforts and tactics the child is refusing to listen to reason and doesn't care about reason etc. You tell me whats so wrong about spanking kids in such situations? Do you honestly believe that parents that have spanked their kids are bad parents? It doesn't mentally or physically scar children or anything, i got spanked numerous times when i was a child and it never did me any harm, in fact all of its results actually had a positive effect on me.

I don't like spanking. It's bad. I don't like it at all. I get scared. I never want to be hit. I get really scared when my mom pretends like she's going to hit me. :( one time in a store she did that and I got so scared I pushed her into a rack.



And you're supposed to be 16years old :souka: ? If you know your mum is pretending, then why did you loose control of yourself and be agressive towards her by pushing her into a rack?
Childish behaviour IMHO, you have a lot of growing up to do- perhaps you should try growing a thicker skin for a start and control your impulsive reactions better, you're not a child anymore.

[Derfel]

Im 17, soon 18, and tbh I don't give a damn about the pain, but honestly, I take humiliation from no one, unless my life is endangered, so yeah, if I were hit now, I'd go and destroy something my parents like to use, say their TV! On the other hand I don't do anything I shouldn't, and other than my studies I don't allow my parents to interfere with my life, I told them that Im not gonna mug, kill or rape anyone, nor am I gonna break into stores or anything like that, so they should be satisfied with all that, I keep my word. But yeah, even now at this age I often ask my parents for their opinions, and they often give advices regarding my studies, but nonetheless, that is where their authority ends.

[Han Chan]

Banning spanking children leads to less child abuse - see this article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10368213

[Goldiegirl]

I don't want any government telling me how to raise my kids. Unless a child is being abused, and it doesn't take too much intelligence to figure out abuse, there is no need to get the government involved. For every anti-spanking website I can post one that is pro. That isn't the point of this thread, it was to hear your PERSONAL opinion, not one of some country, or government.

[Sarapva]

I think that showing violence to children, which spanking is, just leads to more violence.

[Goldiegirl]

It easy to say how you will or won't raise your kids until you have them. I know we all strive to live to the ideals we have set for ourselves, but I am sure they change as our lives change. It's easy to judge those who have come before us, before we are in that same situation. I for one will hold by judgments, and ideals until I am in the situation myself. My goal is to raise, happy, healthy, respectable children that will go on to be honest, caring, hard working adults. The path that I may take to get them there I am sure will have many forks along the way. I can't chose today what I will do tomorrow.

[Han Chan]

I don't want any government telling me how to raise my kids. Unless a child is being abused, and it doesn't take too much intelligence to figure out abuse, there is no need to get the government involved. For every anti-spanking website I can post one that is pro. That isn't the point of this thread, it was to hear your PERSONAL opinion, not one of some country, or government.
OK, then I like to tell you that in those countries where spanking children have been banned, the wast majority of the parents would newer beat their children. As far as I know no parent in Denmark have been punished for giving their child a slap in the behind. However, by passing a law, the society sends a signal to the parents. In Denmark it is by now nearly universally accepted that beating children belong to the past. This also means that most of us regards those countries where you still beat your children as backward - in this regard!

I was newer beaten as a child and I was always well behaved, some of my class mates who were beaten by their parents turned out to become violent bullies. If children grow up beeing beaten, watching violence in TV and playing violent games, it is not surprising if they resort to violence whenever they are angry!

[Derfel]

Ok ok, well, umm... you can't deny violent films and games from boys, thats a no.

[Skullcrushergurl]

But at least don't allow such violent things in the home until the boys are old enough to understand that it's just a game and they shouldn't copy it!

[Goldiegirl]

There is a difference between BEATING and SPANKING. I think I made the a clear distinction in the beginning of this thread. A spank is on a clothed behind with out enough force to leave a mark. I would think that a person of at least average intelligence can understand the difference.

It's impossible to shield children from violent pictures, video games, tv shows, movies...they are everywhere. You can as parent use parental controls on the your tv, and internet usage, and not buy your kids violent games and movies. However, parents are not with their children every minute of every day, and just because you don't allow your kids to have those things, other parents may not have the same rules. I think it would be impossible to screen every one of your kids friends families and find out what there values are.

My neighbor didn't allow her son to have any type of play gun, like a squirt gun. She didn't want him to grow up thinking guns were ok. Funny, but when I was baby sitting him he used a Big Bird figurine as a gun. He made any toy that he could into a gun.

[Derfel]

But at least don't allow such violent things in the home until the boys are old enough to understand that it's just a game and they shouldn't copy it!

Someone who doesn't understand that from the very beginning should be taken to a doctor. Im not being cynical, if you sit down with the kid, ask him whether the stuff going on there is real, and if he answers with "yes", you gotta look into it.
Obviously my parents wouldn't allow me to watch porn when I was small, but they didn't mind me watching horror films AT ALL.
It was kinda manly treatment. I was scared all the time, and couldn't sleep. They told me that its thanks to the films, and I should bear the consequences and act a bit more manly, take it and get the hell to bed.
At this very moment I have no mental illness other than my screwed personality, I haven't killed anyone, I haven't mugged anyone, I haven't eaten children, nor have I killed my parents. So, even though I was exposed to violent games, I didn't turn into a drooling freak lusting for blood.

Not letting your kid play with toy weapons is moronic in my opinion. That kid wants the bloody weapons, although a small one, but he's a man after all, so hell, people should have a daughter if they want a kid that would do peaceful things. People need to think a bit about the future of their kid, I mean the other brats probably did play with guns, they probably shot each other with toy guns, they weren't raised as pacifists, so imagine the role of a 100% peaceful kid in a pack of boys... well not too bright is it?
So crippling a boys personality cause some holy mighty divine whatever parents desires so is a crime.
Boys become men, and people must face that, let them have their guns, let them beat each other, let them bully each other. The strongest survives.
Oh yeah, btw im going to ignore anyone who preaches peace, brotherhood or anything among those lines, and comes trying to convert me.

[Goldiegirl]

My brothers were given toy pop guns when they were around 10. I remember you had to put this red roll of "tape" with these little raised buttons that when hit by the hammer (I don't know gun parts to well) they made that popping noise and gave off that bit of smoke. (that I liked the smell of!) Well my mom said they were never to point then at a person. Of course they were boys and a bit later, perhaps a few weeks, they pointed the guns at my mom and shot her! She was so mad. She didn't spank them, because they were too old and too big, but she did take their guns (actually they were rifles) and broke them over her knee! As adults we kids still get a laugh out of that. My mom though did make her point. I remember the wooden handles breaking from the metal tube part! snap!

[Tokis-Phoenix]

It think its stupid when people say that spanking kids leads to child abuse, thats like saying once parents have spanked their kids for the first time the parents are gonna go "hey that felt pretty good, i feel much less stressed now, i'm gonna find a mallet now to hit my childrens fingers with while i deprive them of food!"- only a complete and utter ***** of a parent who doesn't even deserve to have children would do something like that!
Most parents are not morons though, they are intelligent and morally conscious human beings who do not spank their children to relieve stress or to physically injure their children etc, rather instead they spank their children when their children ignore all reason and explanations of why their particular actions are wrong and continue to do very bad behaviour regardless because they are being bratty self centered little kids, who need to understand that if they deliberately break the rules in such particular ways they will get spanked for it etc.

[Kinsao]

people should have a daughter if they want a kid that would do peaceful things.

That saying have my mum in hysterical laughter... :D ;-)

I think generally, it's the same as with animals, a 'spank' that is not hard enough to damage is okay for a child as a deterrant, but after all, it's not the best way neither kids nor animals learn, and it might be necessary some few times, depending on the situation, but it's a better practice to teach by some other method than 'pain'... as we know animals don't do so well in such methods, nor children.

[Revenant]

Just read this. My first reaction is that it goes a little over the top. A link between being spanked as a child and deviant sexual behavior? Dunno man. Thoughts? (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=786295)

[Kyoto Returnee]

I just read an interesting article on spanking children. It wasn't pro or anti spanking per se, but just reported some facts that these researchers had found with regards to spanking kids. Basically by spanking they meant specifically a swat with an open hand on a clothed rear end, and not hard enough to leave bruises or marks. So what it came down to is this, spanking didn't seem to be detrimental to kids between the ages of 2 and 7, earlier and the child doesn't understand and later it's more humiliation. I came from a relatively spank free house. My mom just followed through on her threats. If she said you have to the count of three to pick up your toys or I will throw them out, trust me, they went into the trash and that was that. I think that method worked very well because she was consistent. I do remember getting a smack on the had for touching stuff in stores. I would like to know how discipline is done in other countries, cultures and states. Are you for or against spanking? I am undecided myself as there are kids who I have run across in stores and on planes that I would have gladly smacked (their parents too!).


Great thread that I missed...

In Japan, I have never heard of parents smacking their kids..

Let me just make this clear.. Smacking and abuse are two totally different things..

Off course this is determined by the parents mental state of mind..

My Mum would often smack my sister, me two, plus I used to cop the wooden spoon, usually on my leg, more often than not, it would break, that would make Mum worse and she would then blame me for hurting her hand!

If we were really bad, Mum would ask Dad to give us the belt (Waist Type)

We would pull down our undies, bend over the bed, and my Dad would go, 1 - 2 - 3, and that's when we would scream, Ahhhhhhh.. He would actually make a cracking noise with the belt and we would pretend.. Good old Dad..

Now, my sis was not a believer in smacking kids, instead she would use the scream techinique and in your room, close the door to which they would cry.

Of course as the boys grew older, the smacking came into play.. Boys are boys, we are a tough lot (most of us), and a smack, c'mon, does it really hurt!

Now, my little soon to be March 17, one year old Kai has arrived, and funnily enough, I often smack him on the back of his nappy in a funny serious sort of way as I figured it's good to train him whilst young..

The biggest problem is, it makes him worse and he nearly bit my nose off yesterday!

When he is older, I can see us wrestling, and if he is really naughty, I will make sure I win, although I'm sure he will overtake me later on, at least I hope so..

My wife is Japanese, not that it matters, but I really cannot see her smacking him, or even any sort of discipline, (My way).. It's a cultural thing..

[kai_khk23]

I think spanking children is one of the ways to discipline them. My mom doesn't spank me unless she is really angry, e.g I caused some trouble in school. But if the problem isn't serious, there is no reason why parents should spank them.

[Chi65]

I am very opposed to spanking children, but I have some exception to make, having raised a daughter:

In her kindergarden was a boy, who started getting attention via biting every child. He was very strong anyhow, although not a violent character in general. It was just a phase to get extra attention.
Anyhow, my daughter picked up on that and tried the very same. My daughter was not the strongest one at all, in fact, she was the youngest one in this place, but apart from that well respected. She just gave it a try.. .for fun's sake.

When I heard this, I at first could not believe this, but got it confirmed.
I first talked to her, but no effect, it went on as before. So I had to think about another way.
I did not spank her, btw, but got the idea of doing the same to her as she does to the other ones. So I bit her, not very deep, nor in rage, but it hurt her and you could very well see my teeth for a while. She cried a lot right after, but I cooly explained, that this is, what she also did to others and that it hurt them as much. The biting was over immediately. . .

My family was raging, but I explained, that I think, its the easiest way to show her, what she really does, and sticked to this, I still do.
They later forgot all about it, particularly, because it was effective, and we stayed on good terms as before, same with my daughter. She never ever complained about this later on, only smiled.

If I very rarely spanked her now and then, it always happened, when she definitely was violent and over the top herself and only after three warnings, actually. So my own system. This way she knew, what was going to happen, from the times before. If she nevertheless went on, I did it, again not in affect, but consequently and just one short but clear slap. This game did not last very long, by the way. It seemed to be a phase only. She got it, and also about this, she never complained later on. And we often openly speak about the past. She never blamed me for this at all.

As for my own, I was hit very often at home, simply because that was the habit at that time, and parents very much into being the unquestionable authority, one could not talk about anything, but had to do, as they said. I had heavy dictators.

Yet, my father was less so and even felt bad about doing so, but did not know other ways. He was simply used to this method and thus felt to have to do it, for example when the school notes were bad, which happened very rarely for me, actually, because I was amongst the best there, despite being the youngest (I started school with 5, usually you do with 6).

Anyhow, I had a bad time for short, feeling emotionally very stressed in general, basically because of stress within the family. I was never a robotlike child. So, I once got a bad note, due to lack of concentration. My father hit my hands really hard, but since I just had a little operation on one hand, it started bleeding like mad.

I will never forget these little bleeding hands of mine plus the feeling of being very wronged, emotionally and in general, because it was not a bad note due to lazyness or bad behaviour. Since then, I always stepped back, when my father tried to cuddle me, and then he gave up to even try so.

Nevertheless, he later was the main one to help me very much to become an artist, although he was not convinced, that this would pay. We got on really well apart from touching, and he was never violent to me anymore, even started telling me to come to him, if I had any problems. I suppose, he also suffered very much under what he had done once.
I still have all his long sweet letters during my studies. He dearly loved me, as could also be seen on loads of wonderfull pictures, that he took. But cuddling? That was over once and forever. I simply stepped back,whenever he tried.

Some experiences stay forever, and that should be put into account with every spanking. If you can really justify it, also later on, its fine, if not, don't do it.

[kairu]

So I have an update on my point of view on this subject, because interestingly we went over it recently in my introduction psychology class, and I found what my professor had to say very interesting.

When it comes to very young children, at least, (and, according to my professor, who has a PhD in psychology--in case some of you want to know his credentials--not ALL psychologists agree on this, although the majority of them do) spanking can actually serve as a positive reinforcer. That may not make a lot of sense, but look at it this way:

A child does good things and a child does bad things. While the child is consitently punished for the bad, children aren't usually consistently rewarded for the good. Punishment for bad and reward for what is good are both forms of attention, arguably the strongest reinforcer there is.

Spanking is giving attention, although negative attention, and thus serves as a positive reinforcer for the behavior for which the child is being spanked in the first place.

When a child picks up on this (more likely unconsciously), it is actually probable that he or she will continue to do bad things, because it can get them attention. This especially makes sense in today's world, in which parents spend more time working and the child is left to daycare, goes to school earlier, nannies are hired, etc. Little attention is given by the parents in these situations. Even disregarding these, though, attention, whether positive or negative, is actually a positive reinforcer for good and bad behavior. Thus, if more punishment is given in response to bad behavior (e.g., spanking) than reward for the good, the bad behavior is being enforced more, and is more likely to continue.

The solution then, as my professor suggests, is this: As much as possible, ignore the bad and reinforce the good. If you're sitting in the car and the child is screaming and being really really really annoying, ignore it. Don't say shut up, don't yell, and don't spank; don't do anything but ignore it, as hard as that may seem. Then, when the child eventually gives up on yelling and settles down -- right when that happens! -- reinforce it with positive comments about how he or she has calmed down and that's great, et cetera.

The second step involves this sort of reward--reinforcing the positive. While the negative should be completely ignored in many to most cases (and there are exceptions to this, obviously, which I'll touch on in more detail in the next paragraph), the positive behavior needs to actually be reinforced as much as possible (meaning, every time you notice something positive: and pay attention)! Consistent attention given to positive behavior (positive reinforcement) and no attention whatsoever given to undesireable behavior (no reinforcement) can really be effective in child rearing.

There are, however, situations in which bad behavior obviously can't be ignored. For example, kid smashing another kid's head against the pavement, or child screaming in the middle of a crowded restaurant. In these instances there are two things that can be done (either one or both):

(1) Remove the child from the reinforcing situation
(2) Take something positive away

"Time out" is an example of (1), sort of. If you remove the child from the situation in which the undesired behavior is being exhibited, and keep the child in "time out" until favorable behavior returns or is adopted (then allow them back into the situation, as long as they maintain good behavior), that will reinforce the good behavior while casting negative light on the bad behavior in the child's mind.

Further, taking something positive away is a form of punishment in the way that most of us understand it, but what it actually is doing is taking away something that the child likes until good behavior returns. In other words, instead of the sort of punishment in which negative attention is "given" (this giving of attention being a positive reinforcer), you're "taking" something positive. Then, when good behavior returns, you can "give" the positive thing back, thus reinforcing the good behavior.

In this sense, giving is comparable to positive reinforcement and taking to negative reinforcement (something that makes the child want to NOT exhibit the behavior to which this taking is a response).


Unfortunately I don't have any sources to list because this is directly from my memory from my professor's lectures (got 100% on the test, though! Haha). Also, I neither that this is the only good way to raise a child, that punishment (in terms of spanking, yelling, etc) will always result in more negative behavior, nor that ignoring the child's bad behavior while reinforcing the good behavior will certainly result in all good behavior.

None of us are people, children included. But--in my opinion--physical punishment is one of humanity's imperfections, and I also suspect that it causes more harm than good.

[Jericho Desu]

Short answer: I'm against it.

I mean for other people I don't really care, because it's their way of disciplining (as long as it doesn't go overboard of course) their child, but for me I will never spank my kids. I believe there are other methods that can be used to get the message through to the child, whether its just simply banning favourite foods, video games, tv etc... or acting like you want nothing to do with the child, other then providing food and a place to sleep (I think making the child think you don't love him/her anymore would be quite an extreme thing, far more worse then anything else).
Its not only all that, but for me personally even though I don't have kids now, I can't imagine myself hurting them, even if its for 'their own good'.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I think whatever punishment you give a child, the main thing is that you punish the kid for them doing something bad when you said you would if they did the bad thing. To many parents end up being at their wits end with their unruly behavior, but its not uncommon for this bad behavior to develop in kids when rules are not properly enforced.

Some people here seem to be against physical punishment like spanking because its physical, but then they advocate mental punishment in its place (like ignoring the child). To be honest i don't think that you can really argue that mental punishment on a child is any better than physical punishment. Mental punishment on the child like ignoring the kid isn't necessarily the best, because gone about the wrong way it can leave much more devastating effects on the child than a spank would.

Not all kids behave bad because they do it for attention, some kids behave badly because they have personal issues which they themselves do not always fully understand but end up venting their problems in the form of bad behavior, and to punish a child in such circumstances by ignoring the child's cry for help is no better than spanking the child. But everyone here seems to be talking about bad behavior in kids as a case of kids purely attention seeking, and i don't think this is correct.

To be honest, i am not against spanking kids, however that does not mean i am always in favor of it. At the end of the day, IMHO different bad child behaviors in different situations often call for different attention to the problem and different punishment.
Not every child is the same either, i honestly believe that there are some children which are easier or harder to bring up than other children, and this is partly why i think parents are flawed when they criticize other parents for the way they punish their kids because they think its unnecessary, because some kids are actually easier to bring up than others and may respond better to certain forms of punishment than others. My brother was a real terror when he was growing up, and believe me, my parents tried all sorts of punishments on him, from the classic "time out" on the stairs, to ignoring bad behavior, to making him sit in his room, to spanking him etc. The spanking unfortunately was about the only type of punishment that seemed to have any effect on him. My parents really did try with him, but unfortunately he was just a very difficult and hyperactive child. I was a completely different child on the other hand though and i was rarely punished as i was often (but not always of course) good, however i have memories that go right back in my life, and i do remember being ignored by my mother and to be honest that hurt me far more than getting spanked ever did.

[Jericho Desu]

Some people here seem to be against physical punishment like spanking because its physical, but then they advocate mental punishment in its place (like ignoring the child). To be honest i don't think that you can really argue that mental punishment on a child is any better than physical punishment. Mental punishment on the child like ignoring the kid isn't necessarily the best, because gone about the wrong way it can leave much more devastating effects on the child than a spank would.
As I did mention, ignoring the child would be 'extreme', as in I wouldn't do that unless it was something that needed that sort of punishment. I totally agree that if you went the wrong away about trying to hurt a child mentally, it could leave a permanent mark.
Not all kids behave bad because they do it for attention, some kids behave badly because they have personal issues which they themselves do not always fully understand but end up venting their problems in the form of bad behavior, and to punish a child in such circumstances by ignoring the child's cry for help is no better than spanking the child. But everyone here seems to be talking about bad behavior in kids as a case of kids purely attention seeking, and i don't think this is correct.
You make a valid point, this is something I normally would have thought about at first since I have acted like an idiot when I was younger due to 'personal issues'. Then I guess it does depend upon the situation at hand, however can we distinguish between what was done out of just foolishness or what was done because of a deeper underlying issue?
Maybe a 'heart to heart' talk might suffice at first to see the reason behind such behaviour and then disciniplinary action should the offence be repeated. However I stand behind what I said about never spanking/hitting my kids.

[kairu]

Oh yeah, ignoring a child completely is horrible! But ignoring the bad behavior--paying no attention to bad behavior when it is happening, then giving LOTS of positive attention when the bad behavior subsides or good behavior returns--is not completely ignoring the child, but not paying attention to the child's bad behavior.

The attention is the reinforcer. Thus, you need to give it in order for good behavior to be displayed, not just take it away completely.

And, of course, this doesn't necessarily apply in every situation.

[Han Chan]

I am stunned that there are still so many who argue for the right to spank children. Fortunately more and more countries are banning this kind of degrading behavior: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html

[magevampjoe]

I am only 16 years old, and I agree with giving a kid a smack for misbehaving. I wish they would bring back the cane, it would teach some people respect.

Being smacked hasn't done me any harm, it just kept me in line a bit more.
Anyway, if I say something to a parent when I am 5 years old, I get a smack. If I say something in a bar or pub to someone when they have had a few drinks, I am likely to get a punch in the face.
It helps teach you to keep your mouth shut and to act more respectably. I come from a middle class family (not working class, not posh) but we practice smacking because it works, the kid cries for 10 minutes more for humiliation than it hurting and then it is over, and the kid won't do that again or it gets a smack.

I don't know why people oppose smacking kids for misbehaving, probably the same as trying to save the tiny amount of animals used in experimentation when each year in the sewers of london around 8-12 million rats are killed. People just are too PC now.

I agree with Derfel a bit though, kids usually grow out of stuff after a while.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Some related news;
"A former school nurse is to take legal action after she was sacked for smacking her 10-year-old son at home.
Susan Pope, from Malvern in Worcestershire, was arrested and her children taken from her after eldest son reported her to police.
She said she was detained for 32 hours by West Mercia Police after the incident in May last year.
She said she was taking action against her former employers, social services and the force";
Full story;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7355224.stm
Huh i can believe that, what a nanny state, her son is such a little bastard too! People are always complaining about the crimes committed by the youth of today, but its no wonder that we have such problems in society when a bratty little kid can get his own mother arrested and sacked from her job just for trying to enforce good manners on her own son. Well i bet he'll be getting no pocket money anymore now, specially since his mother won't be able to afford to.
You guys always go on about giving kids rights and treating kids like adults, and kids are intelligent- and they're intelligent enough to use the law to get their own way, even if their own way isn't right. I'll be laughing when you get arrested by the police when you get mugged by some little brat and you're the one that is sent to jail (by the nanny state which you voted for) for trying to protect yourself against some little bastard. (edit: i realize now this sounds very harsh and i apologize for this- i wouldn't laugh if anyone here got mugged, but i was just trying to make a point about society in general etc).
Has this kid learnt that bad actions have bad consequences on his part? Hell no! The moral of this story, is that if your parents try to stop you from doing bad behavior, you can get them arrested for abuse and have them sacked from their job!
Is this a case of an abusive bad parent who is a danger to children and who didn't deserve to be a free hard-working member of society? Or is this a case of a hard working mother who was an asset to society who tried to punish her kid for his bad antisocial behavior but ended up being the one punished (severely) for doing so?

[shygirl]

Derfel, i disagree with you.it does matter what kids do.Kids should not lie,bully others,etc...

[Bellevance]

Throughout history, the physical disciplining of children has been common in most countries. The Greeks and Spartans used spanking. The ancient Egyptians and some American Indian tribes did, too. But whatever human history and cultural tradition may seem to dictate, as numerous studies have conclusively determined, the bottom line is spanking just doesn't work.

This from the New York Times Motherlode blog:

"Six years ago the psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, then at Columbia University, published a review of 62 years of research, analyzing 82 separate studies. And while there was a lot of evidence that spanking makes children do what they are told in the very short term, it seems only to teach children not to get caught. What it doesn’t do is teach them to do better."

In recent decades, as civilized people in general have become a little smarter, they have seen the wisdom in refraining from hitting their kids. They have begun to learn other, more effective methods of discipline. The corporal punishment of children is now illegal in 24 countries, including Germany, Italy, Greece, Chile, and all of Scandanavia. What's interesting is that spanking remains legal in all primarily English-speaking countries--the US, the UK, Australia, South Africa, and Canada--except New Zealand.

[Half-n-Half]

Throughout history, the physical disciplining of children has been common in most countries. The Greeks and Spartans used spanking. The ancient Egyptians and some American Indian tribes did, too. But whatever human history and cultural tradition may seem to dictate, as numerous studies have conclusively determined, the bottom line is spanking just doesn't work.

This from the New York Times Motherlode blog:

"Six years ago the psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, then at Columbia University, published a review of 62 years of research, analyzing 82 separate studies. And while there was a lot of evidence that spanking makes children do what they are told in the very short term, it seems only to teach children not to get caught. What it doesn’t do is teach them to do better."

In recent decades, as civilized people in general have become a little smarter, they have seen the wisdom in refraining from hitting their kids. They have begun to learn other, more effective methods of discipline. The corporal punishment of children is now illegal in 24 countries, including Germany, Italy, Greece, Chile, and all of Scandanavia. What's interesting is that spanking remains legal in all primarily English-speaking countries--the US, the UK, Australia, South Africa, and Canada--except New Zealand.

I think it depends on the child/situation. I was spanked by my parents and I turned out fine.

Sometimes children just don't understand the meaning of "no" and will keep going to see how far they can get. If a child is acting up in public, being a brat and constantly whining, I think a little spank would do him/her good. But if they do something wrong and it's an accident or it's just not that severe, a good discussion and correction is best.

[Bellevance]

I think it depends on the child/situation. I was spanked by my parents and I turned out fine.


This is this most common rationale offered by parents who refuse to accept the irrefutable conclusions of study after study. The truth is that any corporal punishment, whether or not it's applied "with love" as some kind of corrective, is ultimately ineffective and potentially harmful. These findings are the reasons why physical punishment within families is against the law in the most enlightened countries today.

On the issue of parental "rights" (among others, like religious belief), many people find it very difficult to discard long-held, deeply inculcated beliefs even in the face of overwhelming, well-established evidence. Rational thinking, in some areas, is trumped by prejudice and mistaken loyalty to behaviors that conform to tradition or to a perceived social norm.

[Emoni]

Look, I think this is just a matter of sensibility. You can spank and end up with a good kid, you can not spank and end up with a good kid. There is a CLEAR (not fine) line between spanking, and physical abuse, and you aren't going to scar a child for life if you spank them a bit when they are 4 and being extremely bad.

I don't like seeing a kid get spanked, but it isn't abuse if it is just a thwak. I DO get mad as hell and will directly confront a parent who is out and out physically abusing their child.

[Bellevance]

I think this is just a matter of sensibility. You can spank and end up with a good kid, you can not spank and end up with a good kid.

Many a spanked kid has survived a childhood in the home of well-meaning but ignorant parents. Indeed, good kids can sometimes emerge from the worst conditions of deprivation and neglect in the home. But such observations cannot logically justify an outmoded and thoroughly discredited form of parental discipline. Those who continue to insist that spanking children can be effective, instructive, and harmless simply have not informed themselves of the facts. They should do so before they give voice to their shallow opinions. Otherwise, they embarrass themselves.

Worse, in relying on their own narrow experiences, on tradition, and on common practice, they do themselves, their children, and their communities a profound disservice. Uninformed or misinformed themselves, they become conduits for more misinformation. Child labor was once accepted as right and proper everywhere in the world. Most cultures today have left those dark times and those dark attitudes behind them. In the benighted practice of spanking, civilization as a whole is making gains, but it's been slow.

Look, this is matter of good sense (rather than of "sensibility"), that's quite true, but where does good sense come from? It's a matter of making sound parental decisions based on the best, current, established understanding of the consequences of parenting practices. Corporal punishment has been shown to be counterproductive and unnecessary in study after study and in culture after culture all over the world. Why have so many countries outlawed corporal punishment in the family? The reasons are not whimsical or arbitrary. These stern laws are based on the irrefutable findings of thorough research. Spanking does not work. Far better methods of discipline are available to everyone. All they need to do is make the effort to learn about them.

[Malamis]

As a spanked individual (kinky :/) my only contribution to this is from my own experience:

When a 3 year old insists on climbing onto a window sill 3 stories above the ground, regardless of how comprehensively you instruct him not to, he should have an association of pain with the activity not in proportion to the potential consequence of his action.

When a 9 year old insists on carrying a toy gun in his hand whilst riding his bike despite instruction to the contrary, he should have have pain associated with the consequence of his action not in proportion to the potential outcome, instead of being hit by a car because he couldn't break.

I'll say nothing else :|

[Bellevance]

When a 3 year old insists on climbing onto a window sill 3 stories above the ground, regardless of how comprehensively you instruct him not to, he should have an association of pain with the activity not in proportion to the potential consequence of his action.

The questions raised by such an opinion are, first, whether such instructional pain (if pain indeed should accompany the infraction at all) ought to be inflicted by a parent or caregiver, and second, whether the inflicted pain actually teaches a child anything useful that could not have been taught more effectively by a more thoughtful parent. The firm answers, borne out by extensive research over decades, are "no" and "no."

By the way, Malamis, I live not far from Gerald Bull's long-abandoned Space Research compound that straddles the border between North Troy, Vermont, and Quebec. When Bull fell out of favor with the US Defense Department and found himself charged with and convicted of illegal arms trading, he gave up on his space gun enterprise (a prototype sat on the grounds here for years) and moved to Europe, where he was ultimately killed by Israeli agents for striking a super-gun deal with Saddam Hussein. Bull occupies a section of my novel, COLD COMFORT, the first in a series of three literary suspense novels set in Vermont. The most recent is called THE FIFTH SEASON (Three Rivers Press). The third will be out in the fall of this year. My publisher in the UK is Robert Hale, if you have an interest.

[Malamis]

The questions raised by such an opinion are, first, whether such instructional pain (if pain indeed should accompany the infraction at all) ought to be inflicted by a parent or caregiver, and second, whether the inflicted pain actually teaches a child anything useful that could not have been taught more effectively by a more thoughtful parent. The firm answers, borne out by extensive research over decades, are "no" and "no."


True though this may be, I personally am thankful I had the stupidity knocked out of me at an early age before I had the chance to kill myself accidentally. I distinctly remember (with crimson shame) the amount of shenanigans I got up to under the supervision of my liberal humanist aunt of "let him have his fun, but send him to his room when he screws up", which were bordering (and possibly passing through) criminal many a time. Neither case was perfect, but i'm eternally grateful i'm alive and free to criticise them.


By the way, Malamis, I live not far from Gerald Bull's long-abandoned Space Research compound that straddles the border between North Troy, Vermont, and Quebec. When Bull fell out of favor with the US Defense Department and found himself charged with and convicted of illegal arms trading, he gave up on his space gun enterprise (a prototype sat on the grounds here for years) and moved to Europe, where he was ultimately killed by Israeli agents for striking a super-gun deal with Saddam Hussein.


He then made significant orders from around the world to complete a new space gun in Iraq, as well as a handful of other ballistics projects, drawing on several Manchester & Birmingham area Ironmasters. T'Internet tells me that they were seized before shipment (and some are on display in the Imperial War Museum), but after he had died. Since it was pretty much him and nobody else who could pull off the space gun, which could conveniently be used to lob ordnance into Israel as well, the project was abandoned and space tech was set back Emperor knows how long.

Bull occupies a section of my novel, COLD COMFORT, the first in a series of three literary suspense novels set in Vermont. The most recent is called THE FIFTH SEASON (Three Rivers Press). The third will be out in the fall of this year. My publisher in the UK is Robert Hale, if you have an interest.
You sir have a customer.

[Bellevance]

He then made significant orders from around the world to complete a new space gun in Iraq, as well as a handful of other ballistics projects, drawing on several Manchester & Birmingham area Ironmasters. T'Internet tells me that they were seized before shipment (and some are on display in the Imperial War Museum), but after he had died. Since it was pretty much him and nobody else who could pull off the space gun, which could conveniently be used to lob ordnance into Israel as well, the project was abandoned and space tech was set back Emperor knows how long.

Right you are. Way off-topic for this thread, but as I recall, Hussein ostensibly wanted the suger gun to launch an Iraqi space satellite and thus upgrade his status in the region. But of course any big cannon could also launch ordnance into Israel, as you say. He was a genius, Bull was, but blinded by his singular vision. He really believed his superior mind somehow gave him some exalted, protected status.

I think segments of the barrel ordered by Hussein had been manufactured in England (sounds as though you would know better), and they were intercepted somehow, which exposed the plan. Bull didn't care who funded the project; he simply wanted to make the gun. He still holds the altitude record for a fired projectile, I believe. It was launched from Barbados. All this makes me curious as to your interest in Bull. The compound here in Vermont was extraordinary. Because it straddled the border, his corporation could export arms out of either the US or Canada, depending on which country's laws were better conducive to the deal he had going down.

No one was sure who had killed him for some time. A few years back, I believe, someone claimed to have met a Mossad agent who was wearing Bull's $25,000 wristwatch, which had turned up missing when Bull was found outside the door of his apartment in Brussels, shot several times by a 9mm pistol.

[Malamis]

Right you are. Way offf-topic for this thread, but as I recall, Hussein ostensibly wanted the suger gun to launch an Iraqi space satellite and thus upgrade his status in the region. But of course any big cannon could also launch ordnance into Israel, as you say. He was a genius, Bull was, but blinded by his singular vision. He really believed his superior mind somehow gave him some exalted, protected status.

I'd argue that he had to be single minded, because cannon based space tech does not hold as much internal political clout. All you need is one guy to get it right, a handful of iron casters, logistics and the chemical engineers really. Rocket space tech employs hundreds of thousands of voters in doing something that is, frankly, a stupendous waste of money in all but it's single redeeming function: safely getting folk past the grip of gravity.

I think segments of the barrel ordered by Hussein had been manufactured in England (sounds as though you would know better), and they were intercepted somehow, which exposed the plan.

There wasnt actually anything to expose. I came across a civil engineering forum a while back that talked about how everyone up to and including the British customs office knew what was going on, and they frankly didn't care until ( you guessed it) politics came into play. You cant get a .5 km long, 1m bore, perfectly smooth barrel produced without someone drawing some fairly obvious conclusions.

Bull didn't care who funded the project; he simply wanted to make the gun. He still holds the altitude record for a fired projectile, I believe. It was launched from Barbados.

If you could source this I'd be extremely grateful

All this makes me curious as to your interest in Bull.

He's one of my (secular) heroes who aren't involved in the FOSS movement. Were it not that I'm rather financially and ideologically committed (for now at least) in my career path, i'd jump the gun and try and continue his work. I personally dream of man economically shooting spent nuclear fuel containers at Venus/Sol before the end of my lifetime, albeit from orbital relay facilities :blush:

The compound here in Vermont was extraordinary. Because it straddled the border he could export mortar rounds and other arms out of either the US or Canada, depending on which country's laws were better conducive to the deal he had going down.
I hadn't thought of that..
I think it would be prudent to continue this elsewhere, before we piss someone off :-)

[Bellevance]

Those with an interest in learning more about the current thinking and findings with respect to spanking will gain much by visiting Alice Miller's Web site: "Child Abuse and Mistreatment."

[pugtm]

Those with an interest in learning more about the current thinking and findings with respect to spanking will gain much by visiting Alice Miller's Web site: "Child Abuse and Mistreatment."
sorry but that sounds biased from the get go. look at the title obviously it is considering spanking abuse.

actualy interestingly enough Robert Heinlein decided to tackle the issue in one of his books....
"Law-abiding people," Dubois had told us, "hardly dared go into a public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children, armed with chains, knives, homemade guns, bludgeons . . . to be hurt at least, robbed most certainly, injured for life probably — or even killed. This went on for years, right up to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. Murder, drug addiction, larceny, assault, and vandalism were commonplace. Nor were parks the only places — these things happened also on the streets in daylight, on school grounds, even inside school buildings. But parks were so notoriously unsafe that honest people stayed clear of them after dark."

I had tried to imagine such things happening in our schools. I simply couldn't. Nor in our parks. A park was a place for fun, not for getting hurt. As for getting killed in one — "Mr. Dubois, didn't they have police? Or courts?"

"They had many more police than we have. And more courts. All overworked."

"I guess I don't get it." If a boy in our city had done anything half that bad . . . well, he and his father would have been flogged side by side. But such things just didn't happen.

Mr. Dubois then demanded of me, "Define a 'juvenile delinquent.' "

"Uh, one of those kids — the ones who used to beat up people."

"Wrong."

"Huh? But the book said — "

"My apologies. Your textbook does so state. But calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit 'Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms, one which gives a clue to their problem and their failure to solve it. Have you ever raised a puppy?"

"Yes, sir."

"Did you housebreak him?"

"Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.

"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"

"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy.

"What did you do?"

"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."

"Surely he could not understand your words?"

"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"

"But you just said that you were not angry."

Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up. "No, but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"

"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you indicted pain. Justify yourself! Or are you a sadist?"

I didn't then know what a sadist was — but I knew pups. "Mr. Dubois, you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again — and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."

"Many. I'm raising a dachshund now — by your methods. Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class . . . and they often started their lawless careers much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. News organs and officials usually kept their names secret — in many places the law so required for criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage."

(I had reflected that my father must never have heard of that theory.)

"Corporal punishment in schools was forbidden by law," he had gone on. "Flogging was lawful as sentence of court only in one small province, Delaware, and there only for a few crimes and was rarely invoked; it was regarded as 'cruel and unusual punishment.' " Dubois had mused aloud, "I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment — and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism? However, that period was loaded with pre-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense.

"As for 'unusual,' punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose." He then pointed his stump at another boy. "What would happen if a puppy were spanked every hour?"

"Uh . . . probably drive him crazy!"

"Probably. It certainly will not teach him anything. How long has it been since the principal of this school last had to switch a pupil?"

"Uh, I'm not sure. About two years. The kid that swiped — "

"Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals — They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning — a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished — and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation — 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.

"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal — and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder. You — "

He had singled me out again. "Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house . . . and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken — whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Comment, please?"

"Why . . . that's the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!"

"I agree. Or a child. Whose fault would it be?"

"Uh . . . why, mine, I guess."

"Again I agree. But I'm not guessing."

"Mr. Dubois," a girl blurted out, "but why? Why didn't they spank little kids when they needed it and use a good dose of the strap on any older ones who deserved it — the sort of lesson they wouldn't forget! I mean ones who did things really bad. Why not?"

"I don't know," he had answered grimly, "except that the time-tested method of instilling social virtue and respect for law in the minds of the young did not appeal to a pre-scientific pseudo-professional class who called themselves 'social workers' or sometimes 'child psychologists.' It was too simple for them, apparently, since anybody could do it, using only the patience and firmness needed in training a puppy. I have sometimes wondered if they cherished a vested interest in disorder — but that is unlikely; adults almost always act from conscious 'highest motives' no matter what their behavior."

"But — good heavens!" the girl answered. "I didn't like being spanked any more than any kid does, but when I needed it, my mama delivered. The only time I ever got a switching in school I got another one when I got home and that was years and years ago. I don't ever expect to be hauled up in front of a judge and sentenced to a flogging; you behave yourself and such things don't happen. I don't see anything wrong with our system; it's a lot better than not being able to walk outdoors for fear of your life — why, that's horrible!"

"I agree. Young lady, the tragic wrongness of what those well-meaning people did, contrasted with what they thought they were doing, goes very deep. They had no scientific theory of morals. They did have a theory of morals and they tried to live by it (I should not have sneered at their motives) but their theory was wrong — half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they were, the farther it led them astray. You see, they assumed that Man has a moral instinct."

"Sir? But I thought — But he does! I have."

"No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not — and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind. These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I, and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit it. What is 'moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do."

"But the instinct to survive," he had gone on, "can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your 'moral instinct' was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual's instinct to survive — and nowhere else! — and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts."

"We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward the human race — we are even developing an exact ethic for extra-human relations. But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: 'Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.' Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.

"These juvenile criminals hit a low level. Born with only the instinct for survival, the highest morality they achieved was a shaky loyalty to a peer group, a street gang. But the do-gooders attempted to 'appeal to their better natures,' to 'reach them,' to 'spark their moral sense.' Tosh! They had no 'better natures'; experience taught them that what they were doing was the way to survive. The puppy never got his spanking; therefore what he did with pleasure and success must be 'moral.'

"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand — that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.' "

"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"The third 'right'? — the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives — but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue — indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents — people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail."

"And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights' . . . and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure."

I wondered how Colonel Dubois would have classed Dillinger. Was he a juvenile criminal who merited pity even though you had to get rid of him? Or was he an adult delinquent who deserved nothing but contempt?

[Bellevance]

sorry but that sounds biased from the get go. look at the title obviously it is considering spanking abuse.


However it may sound to you "from the get-go," if you have a sincere interest in the issue, you might welcome the chance to learn something helpful and enlightening by giving a careful look to what someone who is a widely acknowledged expert in the field has to say.

What Dr. Miller has learned by studying and researching the issue of corporal punishment for many years may be quite persuasive. She may assert her case and support her arguments with clear and compelling evidence. How do you know whether she does or not? To cling stubbornly and dismissively to one's preconceptions is an insult to one's own ability to learn. The question you may want to ask yourself is: Do I want to know more or am I satisfied with my unsupported opinions?

[pugtm]

However it may sound to you "from the get-go," if you have a sincere interest in the issue, you might welcome the chance to learn something helpful and enlightening by giving a careful look to what someone who is a widely acknowledged expert in the field has to say.
right these modern day "experts" are the ones who gave us global warming and communism. I try to think for myself instead of listening to experts whose incentives give them reason to agree with the majority.
i have read many such "studies" in psych class, maybe not hers specifically but others, and have found them biased.

What Dr. Miller has learned by studying and researching the issue of corporal punishment for many years may be quite persuasive. She may assert her case and support her arguments with clear and compelling evidence. How do you know whether she does or not? To cling stubbornly and dismissively to one's preconceptions is an insult to one's own ability to learn. The question you may want to ask yourself is: Do I want to know more or am I satisfied with my unsupported opinions?
i never have opinions. i have concrete facts. and all human history seems to support me on this one. all those failed monarchs for example never were spanked. while spanking has for most of history helped keep children civilized.
never let a good argument get the better of your common sense.

[Bellevance]

these modern day "experts" are the ones who gave us global warming and communism. I try to think for myself instead of listening to experts whose incentives give them reason to agree with the majority.


To disdain experts purely because they are experts is to embrace ignorance. Sad to see in a student. Especially when it's done with such evident contempt. To think for oneself one must inform oneself. We can never adequately inform ourselves if we reject knowledge "from the get-go."

I have read many such "studies" in psych class, maybe not hers specifically but others, and have found them biased.

Is it a bad thing to be biased? I am biased in favor of tasty nutritious food. A bias is just a caused tendency to think in a certain way. What determines the validity of one's biases are the reasons one has them. Until you make a sincere effort to understand why a person holds the beliefs he holds, you cannot in fairness declare that he is wrong simply because he has a clear bias. What supports his bias? That's what you need to know.

i never have opinions. i have concrete facts

Of course you have opinions. And you're expressing them here. Opinions are statements of belief. Good opinions are based on compelling, logical evidence. Poor opinions are offered without evidence or with evidence that is weak or easily refuted by contradictory evidence. The evidence, for instance, in favor of global warming's human causes is extensive and incontrovertible. Yet there are those whose mistaken biases will incline them to deny that evidence.

never let a good argument get the better of your common sense.

This is just foolish anti-intellectualism. Good arguments have been helping to shape and inform "common sense" for thousands of years.

[Half-n-Half]

all those failed monarchs for example never were spanked.

Which failed monarchs are you talking about? And what evidence do you have to support this?

[pugtm]

my history textbook, which happens to say that king Louis XVI of France had never been spanked and had in fact never even been allowed to fall down. as a result he became an unsure youth and a bad king

[Bellevance]

my history textbook, which happens to say that king Louis XVI of France had never been spanked and had in fact never even been allowed to fall down. as a result he became an unsure youth and a bad king

Any serious student of history will understand that if Louis XVI was "a bad king," the reasons for his failures go far beyond any coddling he may have received as a child. He was a vain man and unintelligent, careless, and ineffectual. He was also so clueless that on the day the Bastille was seized by revolutionaries, he wrote in his diary, "Rien." ["Nothing happened."] To assert that his faults as a ruler must have been caused by his having been too leniently treated as a child is worse than ridiculous. It's stupid. Anyway, if he'd been pounded on by his governess, who knows, he might have become an even worse king.

Possibly there exists actual evidence--as opposed to this kind of ludicrous supposition--that could be cited to support pugtm's claim with regard to "all those [other] failed monarchs." But I doubt it.

[Nicky]

It's when people neglect to draw the line between discipline and abuse that trouble arises; either kids get beaten, or people shy away from all forms of corporal punishment, ....
I mostly agree with this.

Maybe someone should invent a special pressure sensitive glove that can beep and alert parents that they're hitting harder than what 4 out of 5 doctors and psychologists say is acceptable.

[Bellevance]

Maybe someone should invent a special pressure sensitive glove that can beep and alert parents that they're hitting harder than what 4 out of 5 doctors and psychologists say is acceptable.

You'll find that most doctors and psychologists will say that NO hitting is acceptable. With good reason, too. And that's the point.

[Nicky]

I guess I should have used a smillie, it was a joke.

[Bellevance]

Fair enough, Nicky, but sarcasm or not, you're agreeing here with the discredited notion that there is a meaningful and validating distinction to be made between hitting instructively, with "love," and hitting abusively, with rancor. There isn't.

[Nicky]

you're agreeing here
agreeing in a jokingly manner = not actually agreeing at all.

[pugtm]

I mostly agree with this.

Maybe someone should invent a special pressure sensitive glove that can beep and alert parents that they're hitting harder than what 4 out of 5 doctors and psychologists say is acceptable.

"I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment ― and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism? However, that period was loaded with pre-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense.

[Bellevance]

I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment.

That's clear. And that's why, as a conscientious student, you owe it to yourself to examine the large body of refined, contemporary thinking on the matter before you start tossing out aggressive opinions based on hollow supposition, discredited assumptions, and antiquated "common sense."

[Derfel]

The problem I see with spanking is that it is a means for manipulating a kid. 2 different persons would consider spanking their kid for completely different reasons. So, what is to be drawn? Spanking indeed builds character, the character some foolish parents want to build.
Not to mention that the whole thing isn't about pain. Its humiliating, yes it is. And if we look at the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3 on torture, clearly it can be (may happen in the future) interpreted to include chastisement of children.
I mean, you go and slap a kid. That is an aggressive way of telling the kid that you're dominant (hence [a very poor argument]) you know it better.

You want proud individuals or society building blocks?

[pugtm]

That's clear. And that's why, as a conscientious student, you owe it to yourself to examine the large body of refined, contemporary thinking on the matter before you start tossing out aggressive opinions based on hollow supposition, discredited assumptions, and antiquated "common sense."

so you want me to abandon my point of view despite logic common sense and some thousands of years of evidence that it works to listen to your refined and high flying psycho babel?
I guess common antiquated sense isn't cosmopolitan enough for your sensibilities. or maybe it's simplicity doesn't appeal to your sophisticated mind.
i have studied, the "refined modern thinking" and found that thinking is exactly what they don't do.

[Derfel]

so you want me to abandon my point of view despite logic common sense and some thousands of years of evidence that it works to listen to your refined and high flying psycho babel?
I guess common antiquated sense isn't cosmopolitan enough for your sensibilities. or maybe it's simplicity doesn't appeal to your sophisticated mind.
i have studied, the "refined modern thinking" and found that thinking is exactly what they don't do.

Common sense is often an excuse for lazy people not to think and use their brains.

[Bellevance]

i have studied, the "refined modern thinking" and found that thinking is exactly what they don't do.

This kind of sweeping contempt grows out of a reflexive, populist anti-intellectualism that happens to be one of this culture's least appealing and most dangerous aspects. This statement represents an incandescent example of cognitive bias at its worst--and at its most shameful.

It's unfortunate, it's wooden-headed, it's frustrating, and it's sad. No student--no college student especially--should ever succumb to such an attitude, truly. It's the attitude of a proud and defiant ignoramus.

"Education" derives from from the Latin, meaning to lead out [of the darkness]. Those would-be learners who must so furiously keep their eyes squeezed shut will never figure out whether it's dark or not.

[pugtm]

Common sense is often an excuse for lazy people not to think and use their brains.
quite contrary, common sense is normal people using logic instead of being lazy and having pseudo researchers think for them.
as for populist? i think that's the first time i have ever heard myself called that. if by populist you mean a person who uses his own intellect and doesn't really on silly notions of modern culture you can keep it. it is you who is ignoring millennium of data to put forth your own pseudo culture that is incompatible with basic humanity. pain is a mechanism developed by nature to help socialize men(women, whatever) into society. it tells you when you are doing something hazardous to your health. you want us to ignore that for a professor with a pad of paper and "intellectual" idea's that have little to recommend them? That is what is wrong with our culture nowadays, anything logical is abandoned for stupid "progressive theories" and anybody who says otherwise is shot down as being anachronistic or old fashioned or closed minded.

[Derfel]

I don't see that strong a connection between society and pain.
If I went on to slap people whenever they fail to do something that is their duty to do, I would quickly end up in a cell, and that would be for the best of society. Not to mention that its usually not "Oh, sorry dear, I know this is going to hurt, but its for your sake so you will be a good building block in the wall of society blah blah..." but "IM DA PARENT, I KNOWS BETTER!"

[Bellevance]

...as for populist? i think that's the first time i have ever heard myself called that.

You have misheard. If you'll look more carefully, you'll see that the reference is to a populist streak of anti-intellectualism in this country. Your incoherent, tantrum-like condemnation of "pseudo researchers" (whatever they are) and "pseudo culture" (whatever that is) in favor of the imagined primacy of common sense is a pure example of an anti-intellectual rant. This is the kind of pugnacious stupidity and obtuse refusal to investigate established evidence that has made the teaching of intelligent design an issue in this country. It impedes and corrupts rational thinking.

The experience of pain is a fundamental, natural mechanism that teaches animals to fear and/or avoid the cause of pain. Deliberately inflicted pain teaches animals to fear and/or avoid the creature that deliberately inflicts the pain--a parent, for instance. This we recognize as common sense. Superficially, physical punishment and humiliation can make a child stop doing whatever the parent objects to. To that extent it's effective. But the deeper, less obvious effects are often too great (and unnecessary) a price to pay for the superficial result. This finding is well documented. There are better tactics and strategies that parents can employ to change a child's objectionable behavior. Parents can learn, just like college students, as long as they are willing and open-minded.