The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: galets on October 06, 2009, 11:49:09 PM

Title: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: galets on October 06, 2009, 11:49:09 PM
I've been listening to a Saturday's FTL in the car, and I can't help bringing up some points regarding the child-spanking. I am a parent myself, I have 3 children, and let me say it straight I don't condone violence, especially targeted at the little ones. Beating the one who is not only physically incapable to respond, but also dependent on you is bad-bad-bad. But I also heard some points on the show which I really feel like addressing:

Issue #1: Non-aggression

One of the callers brought up non-aggression principle, and that hitting your child is initiation of force. The problem with this statement is that non-initiation of force is not an axiomatic principle, but derived from the principle of self-ownership. Exercising violence on somebody can be equated to a property damage. Since humans value their body very high, hitting someone, even lightly is like damaging a very expensive item. But violation of property rights does not occur every time you spank somebody. You can spank yourself, since body is your property and you can damage it plenty. You can spank your significant other, because significant other owns the body in question and can authorize that. Who owns the child? Obviously, child does only when (s)he reaches capacity to exercise self-ownership. Little children obviously don't have this capacity, so their parents temporarily act on their behalf. So, there could be cases when spanking little child does not breach non-aggression principle.

Issue #2:  IQ

I very rarely side with Mark, but this time he made a good point: difference in IQ between spanked and non-spanked kids does not establish causal link. It seems to me that it is very likely that children with lower capacity to understand others are getting themselves into situations where spanking is likely solution. Smart kids are likely to avoid those situations, so IQ difference simply reflects the fact that smart kids were smarter all along

Issue #3: Patience

One of callers mentioned that she believes that it is possibler to bring up a child with no spanking, but she simply does not have appropriate time, patience and resources to do this. I think this was the key. Everything is possible when you have infinite resources, time and skills. But not all of us are professional pedagogues, and/or own a fortune to be able to hire one. A lot of parents don't have time, a lot of them don't have skills. Some are lucky to have kids which could be brought without too much trouble, but other kids are not as easy. Being single mother with two boys of approximately same age is a whole different thing, than both parents with enough income, and with more evenly aged kids of alternating sex (I'm assuming she probably is not very well off financially, but of course I might be wrong).

Issue #4: Parenthood and individual liberty

Libertarians always talk a good talk about individual freedom, but somehow, when it comes to parenthood, liberty is forgotten. It is important to recognize that one human being cannot be made a serf to another one, simply because (s)he became a parent. While it's obviously a good idea to make sure you have skills and resources available for your children, it is not always happening. Children are people too. People should probably not look at their kids like they are saints, and expect the others parents to do same thing. It's where the liberty begins to end

Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BobRobertson on October 07, 2009, 12:39:51 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.

I agree it's a bad thing. When (listening to the podcast) someone said "When I've seen it done in public...", well in public is the last place to do it! I cannot imagine spanking "in public" unless it was an act so awful that no witness to the spanking would have any doubt. But removing the child from a public place is far and away the most appropriate thing to do. There's the "lifestyle choices" that Mark was talking about.

I also agree that it gets the child's attention. It cuts through the fog of running around, being tired, whatever is going on that is causing the problem in the first place and brings the attention of the child instantly to the here and now. That's the only reason I'll spank, because beating someone as a punishment is pointless. It doesn't teach anything.

And again I agree that it is not something all children need, or respond to, children are just as much individuals as adults are.

Some children are verbal learners, some physical. That's just reality.

I hereby nominate that guy's parents, who had the eternal patience to explain the results of what he was doing wrong to him, over and over and over for year after year after year, for saint-hood.

They deserve it.

More times than I want to remember I've been pushed by my kids to the point of asking, "Did I yell the FIRST time I told you to stop? (they answer "no...") Did I yell the SECOND time I told you to stop? (same answer) Did I yell the THIRD time? (ditto, which shows me they actually were listening) No. Now I'm yelling, and I won't yell again. I hate yelling. Get in the corner. (translation: timeout)"

Saints. Really.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: libertylover on October 07, 2009, 04:12:01 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.


This. 

My parents had a counting rule they would tell you what you were doing was wrong.  Then they started counting and you didn't stop the behavior by the time they reached 10 depending on the problem.  Sometime negotiations would be allowed.  And there was a spanking age range not before the child understood no and up until the age of 12 when grounding and rewards became more effective.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Laetitia on October 07, 2009, 07:52:42 AM
My children are now all old enough to understand reasonable discussions and loss of perks as punishments (video games are great for this), but there was a window between toddler and about seven where dangerous behavior was punished by spanking.
I hated doing it, but a swat on the behind was far safer than allowing a four year old to run around a busy parking lot throwing a tantrum.

Other than when there was an immediate need to shut down a behavior like the one I just mentioned, spanking was reserved for a response to willfully destructive behavior - physical harm to others, violent/aggressive destruction of property. There's a distinction between normal kid destructiveness - things broken carelessly or crayons on the walls - and intending to harm others by smashing their stuff. Anything that falls in the first category can be handled by restitution (clean up or replacing from kids' own piggy bank) and an apology, but I think I'd have been wrong to go that route with actions that would be considered felonies in an adult.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 09:00:25 AM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

Seems like alot of people here have bullshitted themselves into believing its some sort of miricale tool that you simply can't raise kids without.

Also the "saints" comment seems to suggest its more about the parents desire to hit the kids when they act out, not of it actually being a useful tool.

Again, if spanking was actually effective, and not just something that feels like it works, you wouldn't need to do it more than a couple of times before the threat of spanking was enough.

Me and my brother were never slapped as children, neither were my cousins, and of the friends i know who's parents didn't hit them, non of them had any more wild upbringing than my friends who were hit.

It seems to me people who have unruly kids who resort to spanking, doesn't make them any less unruly. You might be able to get a token apology and get them to shut up for a minute from threat of violence (whoop de do), but it certainly isn't going to affect a long term change.

Only natural developments in maturity is going to do that, and as far as my experience goes, that happens with talking and understanding in spite of hitting, not because.

There are clearly examples of parents dealing with unruly children without spanking, so this idea that spanking is the normal solution just seems lazy. I have absolutely no idea where this idea comes from that it takes less time and resources to raise a kid by spanking. You can use physical force without resorting to hitting.

Also it seems to be more popular in the US than it is in the UK, so I think its pretty lazy thinking to accept it as sound parenting just because its the norm.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 07, 2009, 10:39:18 AM
Most spanking is probably less harmful to kids than name calling and yelling at them.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Alex Libman 15 on October 07, 2009, 11:10:38 AM
Nice post, galets.

I have written about the importance of parents rights elsewhere.  I don't consider NAP or even self-ownership to be axioms in of themselves, but consequences of the single axiom I call "evolutionary pragmatism" - the societal ruleset that produces the greatest materialistic competitive advantage is the one most desirable (aka "natural law").  It is very obvious when you look at the data that societies that fail to properly recognize the rights of the parents over their children inevitably experience demographic collapse.  Parents must be motivated to reproduce, otherwise they simply won't, and no one in their right mind wants to spend that much time, money, and energy raising an undisciplined little snitch for the state!
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 07, 2009, 11:31:16 AM
My children are now all old enough to understand reasonable discussions and loss of perks as punishments (video games are great for this), but there was a window between toddler and about seven where dangerous behavior was punished by spanking.
I hated doing it, but a swat on the behind was far safer than allowing a four year old to run around a busy parking lot throwing a tantrum.

Other than when there was an immediate need to shut down a behavior like the one I just mentioned, spanking was reserved for a response to willfully destructive behavior - physical harm to others, violent/aggressive destruction of property. There's a distinction between normal kid destructiveness - things broken carelessly or crayons on the walls - and intending to harm others by smashing their stuff. Anything that falls in the first category can be handled by restitution (clean up or replacing from kids' own piggy bank) and an apology, but I think I'd have been wrong to go that route with actions that would be considered felonies in an adult.
Sounds like you're doing it the right way.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 07, 2009, 12:16:27 PM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

I guess you're right.  If a punishment is effective, then you should only have to do it once, never punishing your kids again.   :roll:

Umm, what?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Alex Libman 15 on October 07, 2009, 12:27:11 PM
Cellular shock collars with fallback GPS.  :lol:

Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 12:43:35 PM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

I guess you're right.  If a punishment is effective, then you should only have to do it once, never punishing your kids again.   :roll:

Umm, what?

Surely the purpose of punishment is to stop someone doing something again. Isn't the definition of effective "Having an intended or expected effect"?

Or maybe parents should hit kids cause it makes them feel better, not cause its actually gonna change their behavior.

If someone is put in jail for murder, and they murder again when they get released, was the punishment effective?

I never claimed any punishment was 100% effective, I just think since spanking clearly isn't a wonder cure, and that a child should behave because it understands why its a good idea, not because its afraid of getting hit, then it seems vulgar and lazy to hit kids when you could just as easily use non violent punishment.

I haven't seen any evidence that spanking results in any more well rounded children than not spanking, and of my limited knowledge in the field, it seems most people who go to get help with misbehaving kids don't get told "hit them more", but do get told use more thought out ways of discipline.

If I could be arsed doing the research I'm pretty sure there's data on how spanking isn't really effective compared to other techniques. Here's a 62 year spanning 88 study meta-study that shows pretty much the only thing corporal punishment is good for is immediate compliance, and has strong associations with 10 negative factors including aggression, mental health issues and crime. (http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html)

I'm pretty sure there aren't comparative studies that show not spanking has such negative effects. The study includes extreme cases of corporal punishment, so it may not be indicative of mild corporal punishment as a whole, but with a lack of supporting evidence in favor of corporal punishment, the only real argument for it is lazyness and a desire to hit kids.

All I've seen on the pro side of spanking is that its "normal", and worrying terminology that somehow not spanking kids would require extra effort and patience.

If you're hitting a kid because you don't have the patience or time to discipline them better, you are a cunt.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 07, 2009, 12:49:52 PM
I guess you're right.  If a punishment is effective, then you should only have to do it once, never punishing your kids again.   :roll:

Good call. I punish using timeouts and loss of privileges. It would be foolish to say "you took away the favorite toy for a week because of a bad behavior - if the bad behavior is ever repeated then you know that taking away toys is not an effective punishment."

I have one child, 5 years old. We do not hit AT ALL. We do not allow anyone to hit. In my young-un's life, there have been like two or three swats on the back of the hand (for offenses like hitting or biting).  My judgment is that those swats were less effective than a stern "no" and a timeout. Taking away toys and privileges has almost always worked in correcting behavior quickly. In the one or two instances when it hasn't, the timeout has been effective, mostly because the timeout led to a much-needed nap. The child will often be angrier and more resistant to rational behavior when overly tired.

One important concept in the 'Tuttle' household is that we try to avoid battles of wills. If my child begins to engage me in a battle of wills, I try to deflect the attention to something productive. I try to use reason and patience. If my child insists on a battle of wills I MUST WIN. This is important, because I make it clear to the youngster that Mommy and Daddy know better. Still, I see it as better to teach my child more creative ways of dealing with problems. It is very clear in my home that you do not get what you want via screaming, hitting, or tantrums. You get what you earn. If my child goes haywire in a grocery store over wanting the cheap toy or candy bar, I remind the little one that this is not how to get what you want and that if the behavior doesn't stop then <current favorite toy> is going in the garage for a week or that we will not be going to see "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs". Then simply move on matter-of-factly. Tantrums are a technique a child uses to get attention and shake up the order. Make it clear that you are not going to give in, no matter what, and that your day isn't going to be ruined. Then make consequences clear and FOLLOW THROUGH. If you give in to the demands of your child then you are not the boss, your child is.

Hitting your child is a good way of showing your child that you think violence is the best way to achieve your goals. It also sets the bar high on punishments. My child KNOWS without a doubt that when I say it is wrong to hit people that I mean it. Hitting is what you do when defending yourself against bad people trying to hurt you.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 01:01:01 PM
Hitting your child is a good way of showing your child that you think violence is the best way to achieve your goals.

tuttle = sense
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 07, 2009, 01:05:24 PM
If you're hitting a kid because you don't have the patience or time to discipline them better, you are a cunt.

Yeah, swatting a kid on the behind so that he doesn't run in front of a car and die is such a cunty thing to do. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 04:05:49 PM
If you're hitting a kid because you don't have the patience or time to discipline them better, you are a cunt.

Yeah, swatting a kid on the behind so that he doesn't run in front of a car and die is such a cunty thing to do. 

If you're close enough to hit a kid you're close enough to grab them.

Recently I took one of my nephews to the park, when we went to cross the road I took his hand and told him not to go till there were no cars before we crossed the road. If he was in a position to run into the road without me stopping him I'd be pretty shit in my role as temporary guardian.

He's only 3 and he seems to have a fairly good grasp of what traffic is. I can only hope that you have terrible communication skills if the only way you can think to stop a child from running into traffic is hitting.

If they're too small to understand and follow instructions in the big bad world, you shouldn't be letting them anywhere near moving traffic without a tight grip. I've seen nothing that can be achieved by hitting that can't be achieved by a stern talking to or other measures.

I have no idea why you're trying so hard to justify "swatting" kids. The only time you should be hitting someone is if you need to do it to prevent yourself from coming to harm. Spanking kids is not the end of the world, but it does appear to be entirely unnecessary and a very lazy and vulgar way of dealing with your kids misbehavior.

Way to go dropping to the lowest common denominator of "not spanking your kids will get them hit by cars" though.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 07, 2009, 04:15:31 PM
I have no idea why you're trying so hard to justify "swatting" kids.

I'm not.  I just think you're being an ass by insisting that spanking a kid makes a person Satan.  Maybe it's not the best parenting method, but for some reason no other less-than-perfect parenting method seems to get people more in a tizzy than spanking.  My parents spanked me on a very infrequent basis, but they were better parents than many who do not spank, and they sure as hell did not teach me that violence is the appropriate solution to every problem or any of that nonsense.  You also effectively called my mother a cunt, which doesn't tend to go over well with any audience. 

The number of stupid, harmful things that kids can do is virtually infinite.  If you spank a kid for doing something one day, that doesn't by any means indicate that he won't do something different but equally bad another day for which you'd spank him again.  The same holds true for every other form of punishment, yet you're not insisting that a parent shouldn't put Junior in the corner just because they might have to do it again some other day. 

Your arguments are overblown, illogical, and insulting.  That's what I object to. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 04:49:52 PM
I have no idea why you're trying so hard to justify "swatting" kids.

I'm not.  I just think you're being an ass by insisting that spanking a kid makes a person Satan.

Spanking kids is not the end of the world, but it does appear to be entirely unnecessary and a very lazy and vulgar way of dealing with your kids misbehavior.

I'm sure there's a frequency/severity of spanking that you would find appalling to see in a parent/child relationship, and theres a reason for that. Just because mild/moderate spanking has negligible negative effects / repulsion factor, doesn't mean it should just be accepted as something parents need to do sometimes, specially when theres lots of evidence that its not.

Quote
The number of stupid, harmful things that kids can do is virtually infinite.  If you spank a kid for doing something one day, that doesn't by any means indicate that he won't do something different but equally bad another day for which you'd spank him again.  The same holds true for every other form of punishment, yet you're not insisting that a parent shouldn't put Junior in the corner just because they might have to do it again some other day.  

The point is no punishments will cause long term behavioral change, only understanding will do that. My whole point is that you should strive for a point where you no longer need to use punishments to deal with your children, and it seems to me using punishments that involve more respect and communication than hitting are more likely to achieve that understanding. Especially punishments that reinforce the role of the parent (i.e. I'm not going to buy you ice cream), rather than petty sadism.

The fact that spanking appears to achieve nothing that can't be achieved by time out/confiscation of toys/whatever is what makes me so animated.

Not because spanking is the ultimate evil, but because its so unnecessary, and seems to only come from a place of lazyness or complacency with the status quo, or even worse, because parents are getting overly emotional.

Also I did qualify my cunt comments. I said if someone is spanking because they're impatient or don't want to make the time for other types of discipline, then they're a cunt. If they think spanking genuinely is the only way to deal with kids misbehavior, then they're just misguided cunts.

 :)
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 07, 2009, 04:55:18 PM
Why do people act like spanking isn't used along with other methods of discipline?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 07, 2009, 05:03:26 PM
I'm sure there's a frequency/severity of spanking that you would find appalling to see in a parent/child relationship, and theres a reason for that. Just because mild/moderate spanking has negligible negative effects / repulsion factor, doesn't mean it should just be accepted as something parents need to do sometimes, specially when theres lots of evidence that its not.
You can say the same thing about time outs. If you put a kid in a time out for a year...

Putting your kid in time out is teaching them that caging people is the best way to achieve your goals.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 05:27:29 PM
I'm sure there's a frequency/severity of spanking that you would find appalling to see in a parent/child relationship, and theres a reason for that. Just because mild/moderate spanking has negligible negative effects / repulsion factor, doesn't mean it should just be accepted as something parents need to do sometimes, specially when theres lots of evidence that its not.
You can say the same thing about time outs. If you put a kid in a time out for a year...

Putting your kid in time out is teaching them that caging people is the best way to achieve your goals.

Except you can't time out a kid so hard they bleed or break a bone. I'm not a particular big fan of the whole isolation form of punishment, withholding privileges sits better with me.

Obviously any form of punishment can be open to abuse, but I can't think of one so distasteful and prone to maltreatment as corporal punishment.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 07, 2009, 05:42:43 PM
Except you can't time out a kid so hard they bleed or break a bone.
Sure they could.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/17/seclusion.rooms/index.html?iref=newssearch
Quote
MURRAYVILLE, Georgia (CNN)  -- A few weeks before 13-year-old Jonathan King killed himself, he told his parents that his teachers had put him in "time-out."

 "We thought that meant go sit in the corner and be quiet for a few minutes," Tina King said, tears washing her face as she remembered the child she called "our baby ... a good kid."

But time-out in the boy's north Georgia special education school was spent in something akin to a prison cell -- a concrete room latched from the outside, its tiny window obscured by a piece of paper.

Called a seclusion room, it's where in November 2004, Jonathan hanged himself with a cord a teacher gave him to hold up his pants.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 07, 2009, 06:16:46 PM
Obviously any form of punishment can be open to abuse, but I can't think of one so distasteful and prone to maltreatment as corporal punishment.

Verbal abuse, threats of hellfire, long-term isolation, and other forms of psychological manipulation....yeah, I can think of a few. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: anarchir on October 07, 2009, 06:30:03 PM
Except you can't time out a kid so hard they bleed or break a bone.
Sure they could.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/17/seclusion.rooms/index.html?iref=newssearch
Quote
MURRAYVILLE, Georgia (CNN)  -- A few weeks before 13-year-old Jonathan King killed himself, he told his parents that his teachers had put him in "time-out."

 "We thought that meant go sit in the corner and be quiet for a few minutes," Tina King said, tears washing her face as she remembered the child she called "our baby ... a good kid."

But time-out in the boy's north Georgia special education school was spent in something akin to a prison cell -- a concrete room latched from the outside, its tiny window obscured by a piece of paper.

Called a seclusion room, it's where in November 2004, Jonathan hanged himself with a cord a teacher gave him to hold up his pants.


We totally had a room like that at my highschool/middle school. Under the first supernintendent/principal I had it was for studying. Under the second one it was where you went when you were in trouble or got ISS (in school suspension). I never had to go there but it was basically an all white room with a table and a chair. Brutal. Some kids had to spend all day in there at times.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 08:14:19 PM
Obviously any form of punishment can be open to abuse, but I can't think of one so distasteful and prone to maltreatment as corporal punishment.

Verbal abuse, threats of hellfire, long-term isolation, and other forms of psychological manipulation....yeah, I can think of a few. 

So being told you're a worthless faggot who's going to burn in hell is worse than broken ribs?

Besides locking someone in a room for days on end I can't see how any of that compares to strong physical violence. Not that this is even really on the topic of spanking anymore, but the statistics for physical and mental harm caused by physical abuse towers over the non physical, although the recording of that kind of abuse is inherently sketchy.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 07, 2009, 08:18:04 PM
So being told you're a worthless faggot who's going to burn in hell is worse than broken ribs?

Is it really fair to compare middling verbal abuse to extreme physical abuse?  No, I don't think so, and it doesn't apply to your argument anyway since you're arguing against all  corporal punishment as if every form of it is worse than every other form of punishment you could inflict. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 07, 2009, 08:33:30 PM
So being told you're a worthless faggot who's going to burn in hell is worse than broken ribs?

Is it really fair to compare middling verbal abuse to extreme physical abuse?  No, I don't think so, and it doesn't apply to your argument anyway since you're arguing against all  corporal punishment as if every form of it is worse than every other form of punishment you could inflict. 

Well that wasn't my intention. Clearly extremely mild verbal physical abuse could for some people be not as bad as some forms of psychological head fucking.

I think intending to cause your kids pain, verbal or physical, even if you think you are doing it for their own good is fucked up.

I guess thats the only argument I really care about, and shouldn't have wasted so much time on back and forth bullshit.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 07, 2009, 08:56:55 PM
Well that wasn't my intention. Clearly extremely mild verbal physical abuse could for some people be not as bad as some forms of psychological head fucking.

I think intending to cause your kids pain, verbal or physical, even if you think you are doing it for their own good is fucked up.

I guess thats the only argument I really care about, and shouldn't have wasted so much time on back and forth bullshit.

Well, okay.  Does that mean you think any and all punishment is fucked up?  Because I think that "inflicting pain for their own good" is a pretty good definition of it. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: freeAgent on October 07, 2009, 10:03:19 PM
My parents spanked me as a child, and I turned out fine.  I certainly don't think it's good to do it when it can be reasonably avoided, but I don't think that spanking is always and necessarily wrong.  Also, I've got a pretty good IQ even having been spanked.  I have no idea how spanking could influence intelligence unless your definition of spanking is punching your kid in the head.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Terror Australis on October 07, 2009, 10:33:37 PM
Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: hellbilly on October 07, 2009, 10:57:17 PM
I'm far from a saint, and I don't spank.

My son is nearly 9 and was swatted once over the running in the parking lot thing every parent seems to deal with, and even then I didn't think it was the right thing to do.

I've yelled over serous stuff (my son has a peanut allergy & tried some chocolate a friend gave him at school.. the day after we'd discussed how important it is not to do that). The yelling seemed to frighten him worse than the spanking.. so I don't like to yell either.

With a 9 year old and a 3 year old, no spankings (except for the one) and very little yelling, I've managed to raise 2 well behaved and smart kids. Secret might be to do a lot of talking to them, explaining the severity of situations, and to keep your word. "Do that one more time kid and you're in TIMEOUT!" .. if you say it, then do it & kids will get the gist.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: anarchir on October 08, 2009, 03:29:54 AM
Keep in mind that the yelling thing doesn't work for parents who yell all the time. My dad was one of those (I hate him FYI), and his disciplining me just couldn't work due to the fact that he would yell at me when I wasn't even making trouble.  I think my parents are a poor example of discipline tactics. I got punished when I wasnt in trouble at all, and while I didnt turn out as a trouble making kid IMO (no more than most at least) and I consider myself plenty intelligent, I wouldnt recommend anything they did.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Alex Libman 15 on October 08, 2009, 04:18:23 AM
For some reason I don't like mixing politics and parenting advice.

From the political point of view, spanking should definitely be legal, heck, the only forms of child punishment that should be prohibited by natural law are those that pose serious risk (p>0.1) of physical brain damage, loss of ability to communicate, or death!

From the point of view of parenting advice...  that's not something that Free Talk Live should focus on.  I mean, c'mon...  One host had a vasectomy in his 20s, the other has like ~1 year of parenting experience, none of them have Ph.D.s in child psychology...  Aren't there better podcasts and forums for those seriously researching this issue?!

Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BobRobertson on October 08, 2009, 06:25:41 AM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

I will go out on a limb and assume you don't have kids.

With every child there are times, some more some less, when nothing short of physical restraint will stop them from doing something actively destructive. Sticking things in electric outlets, grabbing pans of boiling water, and the obvious "running in parking lots" are great examples.

These things don't happen once. Young kids don't learn something just once. Like karate kata, there are some things that are going to have to be learned over, and over, and over, before they are "grokked".

Quote
Seems like alot of people here have bullshitted themselves into believing its some sort of miricale tool that you simply can't raise kids without.

Also the "saints" comment seems to suggest its more about the parents desire to hit the kids when they act out, not of it actually being a useful tool.

Then you're not paying attention. Look at the comments again, read carefully. You'll note that everyone who talks about spanking uses phrases like "have to" and such that indicate that people here are admitting this is not something they do without serious consideration.

Quote
Again, if spanking was actually effective, and not just something that feels like it works, you wouldn't need to do it more than a couple of times before the threat of spanking was enough.

Yes, when the child has reached a point of maturity where verbal instruction works.

Quote
It seems to me people who have unruly kids who resort to spanking, doesn't make them any less unruly. You might be able to get a token apology and get them to shut up for a minute from threat of violence (whoop de do), but it certainly isn't going to affect a long term change.

You seem to have some spark of understanding. It's not about long-term modification of behavior. If that were true, then your idea that "once is enough" would also be true, and it's not.

Raising a child is a long-term effort. Without some way to get the kids attention when it is really important (like running in a parking lot, et al) and they do not have the verbal maturity to even know what "you can die" means, then they are going to get hurt far worse than a quick spank to their bottom.

Quote
Only natural developments in maturity is going to do that, and as far as my experience goes, that happens with talking and understanding in spite of hitting, not because.

Nice textbook answer. If you do succeed in never spanking, I will salute you for it. But I fully expect, the 30th time the kid is reaching for something you have told them "no" about 29 times today already, you, too, are going to look for some way to get their attention.

Quote
There are clearly examples of parents dealing with unruly children without spanking, so this idea that spanking is the normal solution just seems lazy. I have absolutely no idea where this idea comes from that it takes less time and resources to raise a kid by spanking. You can use physical force without resorting to hitting.

If given a choice between locking the kid in a small room, tieing them up or spanking, I'll choose the last. But again, something you still haven't come to grips with: every kid is different, they respond to different things. Spanking is just one tool, not the only tool.

What I really do not like is endlessly threatening kids. "If you do that one more time... Stop that! That's enough! Stop it! 1! 2! 3! I said" etc etc. It's obvious that the kid knows as long as the parent is talking they can get away with anything. They only stop once the parent physically goes and gets them, something which was obvious to me when the shouting started.

As much as possible, I try to say "no" once, and if they continue then I stop them physically. No, not spank, just stop them. Take the thing away, pull them down off the counter, take their hand away from the switch, whatever.

And if that is enough, then great, it's over. As the child matures, more and more of the time that IS enough. Then the verbal "no" is enough. But that takes years, and in the mean time there are going to be times that the kid looks at you, smiles, and reaches for the boiling water AGAIN just to see what you're going to do. Not once, not twice, but over and over.

Without getting their attention, they are going to get hurt. Not just sore butt hurt, but burned. Electrocuted. Cut. Impaled. Run over. Real serious shit that a kid just doesn't have the context to understand without having experienced that minor surprise of a spank that puts in context the concept of "Gee, he says this could hurt me. Maybe he does know something, I guess I'll stop."
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 08, 2009, 08:31:12 AM
As much as possible, I try to say "no" once, and if they continue then I stop them physically. No, not spank, just stop them. Take the thing away, pull them down off the counter, take their hand away from the switch, whatever.

And if that is enough, then great, it's over. As the child matures, more and more of the time that IS enough. Then the verbal "no" is enough. But that takes years, and in the mean time there are going to be times that the kid looks at you, smiles, and reaches for the boiling water AGAIN just to see what you're going to do. Not once, not twice, but over and over.

Without getting their attention, they are going to get hurt. Not just sore butt hurt, but burned. Electrocuted. Cut. Impaled. Run over. Real serious shit that a kid just doesn't have the context to understand without having experienced that minor surprise of a spank that puts in context the concept of "Gee, he says this could hurt me. Maybe he does know something, I guess I'll stop."

You're on the right track here...

What many of you seem to be missing is this: Children are not animals!!!!! They are human beings, capable of reason. They can be reasoned with. If you are trying to educate your children by hitting them or shouting them down then you are treating them like an animal (not that I would treat an animal like that either). If you can't take the time to work with your child then you have no business having them.

Guilt, fear, hitting, berating - these are tools of desperation. Heavy use of them will backfire by the time your child is a teen.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 08, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What tuttle said.


If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

I will go out on a limb and assume you don't have kids.

With every child there are times, some more some less, when nothing short of physical restraint will stop them from doing something actively destructive. Sticking things in electric outlets, grabbing pans of boiling water, and the obvious "running in parking lots" are great examples.

Yeah you're right I don't have kids, I hope that isn't some disbarment to the discussion of how kids should be raised, just like not being black shouldn't be a disbarment to talking about racism towards blacks.

I am fully in favor of physical restraint when its needed. The difference is between grabbing your kid to stop them running into traffic, and hitting them afterwards to try to teach them not to do it. I think even very young kids can clock on to whether something is dangerous if you speak to them with an appropriate tone.

Quote
These things don't happen once. Young kids don't learn something just once. Like karate kata, there are some things that are going to have to be learned over, and over, and over, before they are "grokked".

I never suggested that any punishment is some sort of cure all. I mentioned time and again that the only thing that will really produce long term behavior changes is understanding, not fear of punishment, especially since fear of punishment generally doesn't have any effect if the punisher isn't around.

The point is, unless hitting is actually proven to be more effective than other disciplining, I don't see why anyone would want to choose to do it for anything other than it is quicker to hit a kid than to punish them some other way.

Since understanding is what changes behavior, I think punishments should generally try to reinforce some sort of understanding. The only thing hitting achieves to communicate is that if you don't do what I say I'm going to hit you, and possibly that violence is a good way to solve problems.

The studies I have seen have said that spanking is only good for "immediate compliance", i.e. you hit a kid so they shut up or stop what they're doing out of fear of being hit but it doesn't actually do anything long term to stop them acting out, and there are a bunch of studies that shows it can make them more aggressive.

That was getting at with the "if spanking was perfect you'd only need to do it once" comments.

Quote
Quote
There are clearly examples of parents dealing with unruly children without spanking, so this idea that spanking is the normal solution just seems lazy. I have absolutely no idea where this idea comes from that it takes less time and resources to raise a kid by spanking. You can use physical force without resorting to hitting.

If given a choice between locking the kid in a small room, tieing them up or spanking, I'll choose the last. But again, something you still haven't come to grips with: every kid is different, they respond to different things. Spanking is just one tool, not the only tool.

Well given those choices I'd choose spanking too, locking kids in a room unsupervised is highly irresponsible, and kiddy bondage is fucked up, but those aren't the only alternatives and they're not the alternatives I'm suggesting. Of people who actually get paid to help parents with unruly kids, I've never seen any of them advise spanking (lazy argument from authority i know)

Quote
And if that is enough, then great, it's over. As the child matures, more and more of the time that IS enough. Then the verbal "no" is enough. But that takes years, and in the mean time there are going to be times that the kid looks at you, smiles, and reaches for the boiling water AGAIN just to see what you're going to do. Not once, not twice, but over and over.

Without getting their attention, they are going to get hurt. Not just sore butt hurt, but burned. Electrocuted. Cut. Impaled. Run over. Real serious shit that a kid just doesn't have the context to understand without having experienced that minor surprise of a spank that puts in context the concept of "Gee, he says this could hurt me. Maybe he does know something, I guess I'll stop."

I don't have much experience with kids, but I have some, every week or so for the past 3 years my twin nephews come round so their parents can have some time off.

Firstly, if theres a boiling pan on the hob they don't get let anywhere near the kitchen. If they try to come in the kitchen they get politely told that its too dangerous and I've never seen an issue of that.

 When they where younger the electric sockets within reach where heavily taped up. Sometimes one of them steals a toy from the other, and a big shitstorm kicks off, and I've never had a problem getting them to calm down and getting them to share. This happens at least once every time they're here. I don't expect it to stop any time soon, but I also don't expect spanking them to make it stop either.

I've never seen them spanked and I've never seen a need for them to be spanked. Maybe you're right and there are some kids who can't be disciplined any other way, but until I see it or see some studies to prove it I'm still gonna call spanking unnecessary, lazy and vulgar.

If what you say is right, that you have to keep spanking them so they won't reach for a boiling kettle, how is that any different than if you just kept pulling them aside and sternly warned them? if you spanking them 30 times hasn't done it by now, what would be the harm in not spanking them at all. Or how about not letting them in the kitchen for a time. Seems like not being allowed in the kitchen would be on their minds longer than a short sharp hit.

 What is a boiling kettle even doing in their reach? hell if they're tall enough to reach it they should be old enough to know boiling water is not something they want to fuck with.

Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 08, 2009, 10:51:17 AM
What many of you seem to be missing is this: Children are not animals!!!!!

You feel the need to inform parents that children are not animals?  Really?  I have the utmost respect for your parenting methods, but do you have to be so condescending? 

Children may not be animals, but neither do they have the reasoning capacity of adults.  Reasonable people do not throw themselves on the floor and scream when they don't get a cookie. 

Quote
If you are trying to educate your children by hitting them or shouting them down then you are treating them like an animal

I don't think most people spank to "educate" their children.  They do it to stop the child from hurting him or herself or others.  Is it inconsistent to spank a kid because he threw a toaster at his brother's head?  No, no more than it is to fine someone for stealing.   

Quote
Guilt, fear, hitting, berating - these are tools of desperation. Heavy use of them will backfire by the time your child is a teen.

I doubt anyone here would disagree with that. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Laetitia on October 08, 2009, 11:36:15 AM
Reasonable people do not throw themselves on the floor and scream when they don't get a cookie.   

Wait... what kind of cookie are we talking about here, and is it still warm from the oven, served with a fresh cup of coffee?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 08, 2009, 12:12:38 PM
I don't think most people spank to "educate" their children.  They do it to stop the child from hurting him or herself or others.  Is it inconsistent to spank a kid because he threw a toaster at his brother's head?  No, no more than it is to fine someone for stealing.  

So by that logic its okay to rape a rapist and torture a torturer? Just cause something is symmetrical doesn't mean its logical or moral.

And I know there are some people who actually take the eye for an eye approach to pretty much everything esp murder, which i find an extremely primitive and intellectually shallow position.

'Fining' a thief should be about getting back the victims money, not inflicting revenge. You can't undo violence by creating more violence, but you can restitute wealth by taking wealth back, therefore your analogy is flawed.

 Although there are plenty of stupid judicial systems where money extracted from the criminal doesn't go to the victim.

Hitting kids to show them its wrong to hit people is incredibly dumb.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 08, 2009, 08:13:13 PM
So by that logic its okay to rape a rapist and torture a torturer? Just cause something is symmetrical doesn't mean its logical or moral.

Did I say it was?  No.  I was just countering the silly argument that it's bad to spank kids as a punishment for being violent.  If the only way to stop a kid from beating the shit out of his brother is to spank him, so be it.  A kid getting a few swats on the butt in order to prevent his brother from receiving serious injury is an okay price to pay. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on October 08, 2009, 09:48:03 PM
My parents spanked me as a child, and I turned out fine.  I certainly don't think it's good to do it when it can be reasonably avoided, but I don't think that spanking is always and necessarily wrong.  Also, I've got a pretty good IQ even having been spanked.  I have no idea how spanking could influence intelligence unless your definition of spanking is punching your kid in the head.


This is incomplete analyzation of the statistics. I bet the average parent who spanks makes less money then the average parent that doesn't. Some statistics point out a cause-effect relationship, but all don't. This is an example of a stat that doesn't show cause-effect.

For example I bet the average Mercedes-Benz driver lives in a larger house then the Honda Accord driver. Driving the more expensive car doesn't cause you to live in a larger house, it just shows how people who generally fit into one category (Benz drivers) also fit into another category.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 08, 2009, 10:16:00 PM
So by that logic its okay to rape a rapist and torture a torturer? Just cause something is symmetrical doesn't mean its logical or moral.

Did I say it was?  No.  I was just countering the silly argument that it's bad to spank kids as a punishment for being violent.  If the only way to stop a kid from beating the shit out of his brother is to spank him, so be it.  A kid getting a few swats on the butt in order to prevent his brother from receiving serious injury is an okay price to pay.  


 Whats with taking the argument to hypothetical extremes all the time? IF you don't spank your kids gonna get hit by a car. If you don't spank your kids they're gonna pour boiling water on themselves.

"If the only way to stop a kid from beating the shit out of his brother is to spank him, so be it."

 If the world was going to end if you didn't fuck your parents, would you do it? Is it relevant?

The whole point is that I don't think spanking is the only way to stop a kid doing anything. No one here has done anything to establish that fact, and has done nothing but assert that thats the case, and anyone who disagrees doesn't know how to raise kids; ignoring of course that there are plenty of kids raised who are never spanked.

 Also if a kid is "beating the shit out of his brother", you don't beat him up to stop him, you grab them. All this "only way to stop them" is bullshit. You're not talking about stopping anything, you don't hit a kid to stop them from running into traffic, you grab them, and you physically drag or carry them if you have to.

You don't take a kid out of physical danger by hitting them, you do it by physical restraint, so stop trying to make this argument about the dying and injured kiddies. You're talking about how to try and alter their behavior in future so they don't do it again. Either pull out some data that shows non-spanked kids get injuries more often than spanked kids, or put that argument on the ground and step away from conversation.

If "IF" is all you have, you don't have an argument.

I think we can both agree that its better not to hit kids if you don't "have to", so pro-spanking advocates need to do the legwork and actually prove it, instead of just relying on bullshit 'common sense', unbacked assertions and ridiculous appeals to extremes of "what if you have to spank to stop your kid dying".

Also, you were making the analogy that if its okay to steal from a thief, its okay to hit a kid for hitting. Clearly thats an allusion to eye for an eye mentality, i.e. one turn deserves the same in kind. I took it to its conclusion and it didn't hold up. It's either that or a non sequitir, or you haven't made the argument that connects fining thieves and hitting kids.

Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 08, 2009, 10:21:10 PM
What's worse, spanking your kid, or sending them to public school?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 08, 2009, 10:42:50 PM
What if your 7 yo little kid likes playing with fire, and pulls a moblie digit(minus the crazy)?

Or steals your car and crashes it?

Is it OK to give them a whoopin' then?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 08, 2009, 10:49:17 PM
What if your 7 yo little kid likes playing with fire, and pulls a moblie digit(minus the crazy)?

Or steals your car and crashes it?

Is it OK to give them a whoopin' then?

the only time I'll beat a kid is if he's some sort of pituitary gland tumor giant freak and the only way I can stop them from beating me/another person is by knocking them unconscious.


Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 08, 2009, 11:31:51 PM
the only time I'll beat a kid is if he's some sort of pituitary gland tumor giant freak and the only way I can stop them from beating me/another person is by knocking them unconscious.
Why does size matter?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 09, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
the only time I'll beat a kid is if he's some sort of pituitary gland tumor giant freak and the only way I can stop them from beating me/another person is by knocking them unconscious.
Why does size matter?

Well its the only way I can forsee me needing to use violence in self defense with a child is with some sort of biological abboration., maybe there are some average 6 year olds who can actually kick my ass sans pituitary gigantism, I don't really know.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 09, 2009, 01:31:44 PM
the only time I'll beat a kid is if he's some sort of pituitary gland tumor giant freak and the only way I can stop them from beating me/another person is by knocking them unconscious.
Why does size matter?

Well its the only way I can forsee me needing to use violence in self defense with a child is with some sort of biological abboration., maybe there are some average 6 year olds who can actually kick my ass sans pituitary gigantism, I don't really know.
Do you think it is wrong to use violence in self defense against a midget?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Andy on October 09, 2009, 02:14:06 PM
the only time I'll beat a kid is if he's some sort of pituitary gland tumor giant freak and the only way I can stop them from beating me/another person is by knocking them unconscious.
Why does size matter?

Well its the only way I can forsee me needing to use violence in self defense with a child is with some sort of biological abboration., maybe there are some average 6 year olds who can actually kick my ass sans pituitary gigantism, I don't really know.
Do you think it is wrong to use violence in self defense against a midget?

Who cares, midgets have no souls.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: galets on October 09, 2009, 03:10:16 PM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

See, I'm not suggesting that spanking is a good method to raise a child; what I am saying is that it is a _valid_ method. The brain of most highly-developed animals establishes a natural link between otherwise unlinked events when they happen in short sequence, and if the second event is shocking enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(NLP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(NLP))). This works, for example, when you grab hot iron - it will for a long time get associated with pain and you would exercise caution when a hot iron is next to you. Spanking (same as angry yelling, by the way) when kid does something utterly destructive is a method to associate that behavior with unpleasant consequence. So, to address your question, oftentimes you only need to do it once, but is it _so_ effective? Sometimes, everybody is different.

I was never suggesting that spanking cannot be replaced with something else. If you have unlimited time and want to spend it on a kid alone - chances are you don't ever have to spank or yell. If you have money to buy safe equipment, get house in gated neighborhood, have areas to go with your child which are completely safe - you are good. No spanking needed. But not every parent has it. Some will work 10 hours and barely make ends meet to live in a crummy apartment in bad neighborhood, where every teenager is a gansta wannabe. You don't want your kid to learn hard way what it means - to runaway from a playground in that area.

Quote
Yeah you're right I don't have kids, I hope that isn't some disbarment to the discussion of how kids should be raised, just like not being black shouldn't be a disbarment to talking about racism towards blacks.

It kind of is... Your heart is i the right place, but there are things that kids do, which are very hard to mentally create without prior experience. They do things you can almost never expect from adult. In many ways, children are playing power games, they will constantly push the envelope. My 4 year old daughter, would demand something (watch cartoons for example), and if not given, she will stand next to you and yell very loud for half an hour, and in her age they yell really unpleasant, you cannot work, talk on the phone, it's very-very disruptive. And I believe she is very well aware how unpleasant it is for everyone else to listen to it, she just uses it as a means to get cartoon. Also, she will not sit in a timeout chair, neither stay in her room, nor she will listen to anything you try to tell her, she will walk back stand next to you and resume yelling. This is a scenario, where we have a locking room, and that saves her some swats, but what if we didn't? There are families living in 1-bedroom apartments, what you gonna do then?

If you let kids exploit your weaknesses, they will keep doing it. Children don't owe parents, I agree with that, but neither do parents owe their children anything. When such situation happens, someone must give up, by why does it have to be parent? If parent is willing to spend time and resources to sort this situation in a peaceful manner, good for him. Does he have an obligation to do so? Like Ian says, demonstrate me how was this obligation created. In example above, there is most probably some mistake on our part in bringing her up, we probably could have done something different and she would not give us such hell with her behavior. But we are not professionals, nobody is, yet children are happening

Can conflicts be handled in a calm, patient manner? Sure it can, but not every person has that much patience and/or skill. It would be a better world if only people who are really fit to be parents would be having children, but it isn't.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: davann on October 09, 2009, 04:01:20 PM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

Seems like alot of people here have bullshitted themselves into believing its some sort of miricale tool that you simply can't raise kids without.

Also the "saints" comment seems to suggest its more about the parents desire to hit the kids when they act out, not of it actually being a useful tool.


I was spanked once and only once. I had to spank my step son once and only once.

I have the solution to this issue. Why doesn't everyone just mind thier own fucking business. Christ on a cracker, the anti-spanking crowd sounds so much like all the other nanny staters. You raise your kids they way you want and I'll keep my opinions to myself and I'll raise my kids the way I want and you'll keep your opinions to yourself. Sound fair?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 09, 2009, 04:14:48 PM
You feel the need to inform parents that children are not animals?  Really?  I have the utmost respect for your parenting methods, but do you have to be so condescending? 
I don't mean to sound "condescending", but for the purpose of this debate I wanted to characterize spanking of children in strong terms

Quote
Children may not be animals, but neither do they have the reasoning capacity of adults.  Reasonable people do not throw themselves on the floor and scream when they don't get a cookie. 

A parent should be trying to teach reasoning skills to their child. This takes patience, persistance, and consistency. It is important to also remember that that children learn much by example.

Quote
I don't think most people spank to "educate" their children.  They do it to stop the child from hurting him or herself or others. Is it inconsistent to spank a kid because he threw a toaster at his brother's head?  No, no more than it is to fine someone for stealing. 

What you are describing is a punishment, given after the fact, to educate the child that there are consequences to those actions. I agree with you that punishments are valuable. I also agree that the punishment should fit the offense. I would consider this to be "education" in a sense.

What if the reason the kid threw a toaster at his brother's head was as a retaliation to some perceived wrong? Can you see a cycle progressing? My child has hit both parents and one grandparent. It might have been appropriate to respond with a spanking, I just found that I was able to adequately punish the offense without hitting, and was able to firmly establish an example to my child of creative problem solving. I would also like to add, that in my home, punishments are always linked to wrongs committed and separated from everything else. We can apply a punishment (such as taking away toy X for a week), then discuss the problem, hug, and move on. Since the punishment has been dealt, we can move on to any other event or activity and leave anger and hurt feelings behind. Further, since there is no threat of physical pain, it is always easy to get my child to admit to wrongdoing and discuss what ideas led to it. My child definitely seems to feel my anger as much as I feared my father's, but I feel that there is a difference in the closeness of our relationship. I attribute this to the fact that I always get to be seen as a protector and defender, and never somebody who will cause pain.

The real dangers from using spanking as a punishment, as I see them are:

1) Reducing the credibility of your position that violence is bad
2) It is difficult to measure the actual effect of the amount of force you are applying
3) The risk that you will be allowing too much of your own emotion into the punishment, especially when angry

I still agree that there may be times where spanking could be appropriate. I wouldn't despise another parent for doing it - unless I deemed it for crossing a certain line that I wouldn't be able to quantify here.

Christ on a cracker, the anti-spanking crowd sounds so much like all the other nanny staters. You raise your kids they way you want and I'll keep my opinions to myself and I'll raise my kids the way I want and you'll keep your opinions to yourself. Sound fair?

Because this is a forum where people discuss opinions. Who knows, maybe we'll ALL learn something. I think most of the anti-spankers here have already stated that they wish to see no laws governing this.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 09, 2009, 04:36:23 PM
Yeah you're right I don't have kids, I hope that isn't some disbarment to the discussion of how kids should be raised, just like not being black shouldn't be a disbarment to talking about racism towards blacks.

It kind of is... Your heart is i the right place, but there are things that kids do, which are very hard to mentally create without prior experience.

Then all of us without kids-- tolerant or intolerant of spanking-- had better step out.  However, I do think it should be noted that there are parents and non-parents on both sides of the issue. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 09, 2009, 04:44:04 PM
Quote
Christ on a cracker, the anti-spanking crowd sounds so much like all the other nanny staters. You raise your kids they way you want and I'll keep my opinions to myself and I'll raise my kids the way I want and you'll keep your opinions to yourself. Sound fair?

Because this is a forum where people discuss opinions. Who knows, maybe we'll ALL learn something. I think most of the anti-spankers here have already stated that they wish to see no laws governing this.

I'm glad people as smart as Tuttle are in this discussion.

No one here is advocating jailing parents who spank their kids. I don't see how talking about how best to raise kids is any more nanny state than a conversation on healthy eating.

I thought most libertarians understood, just because you think people should be free to do whatever they want, doesn't mean you don't think there are better ways to live life than others.

If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

See, I'm not suggesting that spanking is a good method to raise a child; what I am saying is that it is a _valid_ method.

I'm the only one who has posted stats in this thread.

If not-spanking kids leads to negative effects on their development, prove it. If it causes them to get into accidents that spanked kids wouldn't, prove it.

All I've heard is anecdotal bullshit on how "you don't know what kids are like".

Anecdotes don't mean shit. I was never hit as a kid. Tuttle doesn't hit his kids.

In fact even if I saw stats saying spanking made your kids safer, I'd still prefer not to do it, for the reasons Tuttle elaborated on, e.g. the message it sends to your kids and the hypocrisy, and the general distastefulness of using violence as an education tool, not as a shield which I believe is its only moral usage outside of consensual S&M/cagefighting type deals.

At least though if stats where provided, it would give some credence to all the righteous indignation pro-spankers are pumping out when anyone questions whether spanking is actually something beneficial or necessary for child rearing.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: davann on October 09, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
Quote
Christ on a cracker, the anti-spanking crowd sounds so much like all the other nanny staters. You raise your kids they way you want and I'll keep my opinions to myself and I'll raise my kids the way I want and you'll keep your opinions to yourself. Sound fair?

Because this is a forum where people discuss opinions. Who knows, maybe we'll ALL learn something. I think most of the anti-spankers here have already stated that they wish to see no laws governing this.

I'm glad people as smart as Tuttle are in this discussion.

No one here is advocating jailing parents who spank their kids. I don't see how talking about how best to raise kids is any more nanny state than a conversation on healthy eating.

I thought most libertarians understood, just because you think people should be free to do whatever they want, doesn't mean you don't think there are better ways to live life than others.


I never said anyone was suggesting to jail parents for spanking. I said everyone should mind their own business.

The way a parent raises a child is as personal as someone deciding to have an abortion. It really is no one elses business. Talk all you want about your opinions but be aware they come across as egotistical.

Broadcasting your non child having opinion on spanking to a large number of parents is about as acceptable as a woman you are attempting to flirt with asking how much you make within the first 3 minutes of conversation.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: galets on October 09, 2009, 07:02:01 PM
I'm the only one who has posted stats in this thread. If not-spanking kids leads to negative effects on their development, prove it. If it causes them to get into accidents that spanked kids wouldn't, prove it. All I've heard is anecdotal bullshit on how "you don't know what kids are like". Anecdotes don't mean shit. I was never hit as a kid. Tuttle doesn't hit his kids.

Dude, you ignored pretty much every point that I made. Why would I be looking for stats? I am not making any points that could be proved or disproved by stats
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 09, 2009, 07:26:40 PM
Yeah you're right I don't have kids, I hope that isn't some disbarment to the discussion of how kids should be raised, just like not being black shouldn't be a disbarment to talking about racism towards blacks.

It kind of is... Your heart is i the right place, but there are things that kids do, which are very hard to mentally create without prior experience.

Then all of us without kids-- tolerant or intolerant of spanking-- had better step out.  However, I do think it should be noted that there are parents and non-parents on both sides of the issue. 

If there is one thing I find intolerable in argumentation it is this appeal to authority demanding direct personal experience. I don't see any reason why someone without kids can't have a valid opinion. In fact, since there are people who abuse their own children to death - as well as parents who tolerate abhorrent behavior from children - I believe it is self-evident that the state of being a parent does not automatically bestow the gift of wise parenting. Further, since each of us has BEEN a child, we should all have SOME opinion on the matter.

After all, I have neither murdered anyone nor been the victim of a murder, but I still have a strong opinion about murder, simply because I am a human and have experienced life.

I want to hear Rillion's opinions, whether they agree with mine or not. At least they have been thought through. The basis for my opinions on parenting were formed before I was actually a parent. The experience has shaped me, but the intellectual underpinnings and careful deliberation were done before the first punishment needed to be issued.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 09, 2009, 07:36:50 PM
Further, since each of us has BEEN a child, we should all have SOME opinion on the matter.

I'll say that when my parents spanked me I deserved it.  It taught me a lesson I needed to learn in each and every case.  I was still a rebel and I still raised hell until a couple of years ago when I realized that my parents and I were not much different and that they only did the things they did when I was young because they loved me and wanted me to grow up to be at least as successful as they are.  It was almost as if I had an epiphany one day.  I guess some people call that reaching maturity.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 09, 2009, 07:39:25 PM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

Seems like alot of people here have bullshitted themselves into believing its some sort of miricale tool that you simply can't raise kids without.

Also the "saints" comment seems to suggest its more about the parents desire to hit the kids when they act out, not of it actually being a useful tool.


I was spanked once and only once. I had to spank my step son once and only once.

I have the solution to this issue. Why doesn't everyone just mind thier own fucking business. Christ on a cracker, the anti-spanking crowd sounds so much like all the other nanny staters. You raise your kids they way you want and I'll keep my opinions to myself and I'll raise my kids the way I want and you'll keep your opinions to yourself. Sound fair?
I agree completely. Cheers.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 09, 2009, 07:43:04 PM
I guess some people call that reaching maturity.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 09, 2009, 08:15:07 PM
I'm the only one who has posted stats in this thread. If not-spanking kids leads to negative effects on their development, prove it. If it causes them to get into accidents that spanked kids wouldn't, prove it. All I've heard is anecdotal bullshit on how "you don't know what kids are like". Anecdotes don't mean shit. I was never hit as a kid. Tuttle doesn't hit his kids.

Dude, you ignored pretty much every point that I made. Why would I be looking for stats? I am not making any points that could be proved or disproved by stats

Well I wasn't directing my comments directly at your comments. Your argument seems to be along the lines of "its difficult to discipline kids without spanking if you don't have the time or man power". Which is a fair enough argument, but thats not the same thing as it not being possible to raise and discipline kids without spanking, which is what I'm talking about.

My point is people can talk about how they need to spank kids to stop them running into traffic and running with scissors, but unless they actually back up that stuff with stats, its just waffle.

I hope most people know that a personal anecdote is generally poor proof for anything on its own. As I mentioned before, I and other people have been raised perfectly fine without spanking. Does this prove all kids can be raised well without spanking? No. But neither does counter anecdotes.

I am by no means calling any parent who spanks a 'bad person', but I don't think theres anywhere near a strong case saying spanking is 'neccessary' in the discipline of kids. Lots of people seem to be taking the position that they were spanked as a kid, and they turned out fine, so its fine for their kids too.

Is it a quick way to gain immediate compliance? Sure it is. But all the other assertions that have been made about the neccessity of spanking have not been backed by anything but anecdote in this debate.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 09, 2009, 08:59:36 PM
But all the other assertions that have been made about the neccessity of spanking have not been backed by anything but anecdote in this debate.
Has anyone said that spanking is necessary?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 10, 2009, 03:21:13 AM

You don't know   JACK!!!   SQUAT!!!




Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 10, 2009, 07:25:54 AM
But all the other assertions that have been made about the neccessity of spanking have not been backed by anything but anecdote in this debate.
Has anyone said that spanking is necessary?

"If you do succeed in never spanking, I will salute you for it. But I fully expect, the 30th time the kid is reaching for something you have told them "no" about 29 times today already, you, too, are going to look for some way to get their attention."

"Other than when there was an immediate need to shut down a behavior like the one I just mentioned, spanking was reserved for a response to willfully destructive behavior - physical harm to others, violent/aggressive destruction of property"

"I was spanked once and only once. I had to spank my step son once and only once."

Plus all the talk about running into traffic, and kids hurting themselves is running with the implicit suggestion that sometimes you need to hit kids to stop them doing dangerous stuff, which I don't agree with and no one here has proved beyond anecdote.

Hellbilly doesn't hit his kid and things seemed to work out okay with his peanut allergy anecdote, so if anecdote is the accepted method of argument here, I'll go with that one.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 10, 2009, 10:56:27 AM
But all the other assertions that have been made about the neccessity of spanking have not been backed by anything but anecdote in this debate.
Has anyone said that spanking is necessary?

"If you do succeed in never spanking, I will salute you for it. But I fully expect, the 30th time the kid is reaching for something you have told them "no" about 29 times today already, you, too, are going to look for some way to get their attention."

"Other than when there was an immediate need to shut down a behavior like the one I just mentioned, spanking was reserved for a response to willfully destructive behavior - physical harm to others, violent/aggressive destruction of property"

"I was spanked once and only once. I had to spank my step son once and only once."
Name some names. Anonymous quotes don't do anything for me. Plus I don't see those quotes as saying spanking is necessary.

Quote
Plus all the talk about running into traffic, and kids hurting themselves is running with the implicit suggestion that sometimes you need to hit kids to stop them doing dangerous stuff, which I don't agree with and no one here has proved beyond anecdote.
The implicit suggestion isn't that you need to do it, but that it works on some kids.

Quote
Hellbilly doesn't hit his kid and things seemed to work out okay with his peanut allergy anecdote, so if anecdote is the accepted method of argument here, I'll go with that one.
And as far as a peanut allergy goes, the punishment is built in.

I don't know if I have ever spanked my kids, but the option is not off the table.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 10, 2009, 03:07:34 PM
But all the other assertions that have been made about the neccessity of spanking have not been backed by anything but anecdote in this debate.
Has anyone said that spanking is necessary?

"If you do succeed in never spanking, I will salute you for it. But I fully expect, the 30th time the kid is reaching for something you have told them "no" about 29 times today already, you, too, are going to look for some way to get their attention."

"Other than when there was an immediate need to shut down a behavior like the one I just mentioned, spanking was reserved for a response to willfully destructive behavior - physical harm to others, violent/aggressive destruction of property"

"I was spanked once and only once. I had to spank my step son once and only once."
Name some names. Anonymous quotes don't do anything for me. Plus I don't see those quotes as saying spanking is necessary.

You can look through this thread yourself if you care that much. Those are all direct quotes from people in this thread.

If you want to play definitions games about what "neccessary" means, have at it, but I'm not going to waste my time on it. I think you're getting at "spanking isn't 'necessary' but its useful", although I'm pretty sure you know where I'm coming from on my position so I'm not sure why you want me to chase definitions and quotations.

The point is, if you don't need to spank your kids in order to insure their safety or personal development, then you're a fucking cock if you do it.

If you want to phrase it as "does spanking actually provide a benefit that can't be achieved by other means", so be it.

I'm under the impression that all these pro-spanking people in the thread are making that argument that they'd prefer not to spank if they could, but its a necessary evil* to keep your kids safe/behaving.

Something I've yet to see substantiated.

*(I'm not saying people who spank are evil before anyone takes it literally and jumps down my throat)
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: hellbilly on October 10, 2009, 08:07:45 PM
Somebody already said it here.. that kids do have the ability to reason. That's the logic I follow.

Younger kids.. who are in that fuzzy area where getting hit by a car or touching a red hot burner is a new concept, maybe reasoning doesn't work. Being unable to reason still isn't an excuse to hit the kid.

My daughter just went past that. She wanted to come hangout with Pops while I was cooking, so I took the time to explain to her not to touch anything or get too close. A little prevention also avoids the need to spank.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 10, 2009, 09:18:22 PM
Somebody already said it here.. that kids do have the ability to reason. That's the logic I follow.
And they also have the ability to be unreasonable, and disobey.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 10, 2009, 09:59:26 PM
But all the other assertions that have been made about the neccessity of spanking have not been backed by anything but anecdote in this debate.
Has anyone said that spanking is necessary?

"If you do succeed in never spanking, I will salute you for it. But I fully expect, the 30th time the kid is reaching for something you have told them "no" about 29 times today already, you, too, are going to look for some way to get their attention."

"Other than when there was an immediate need to shut down a behavior like the one I just mentioned, spanking was reserved for a response to willfully destructive behavior - physical harm to others, violent/aggressive destruction of property"

"I was spanked once and only once. I had to spank my step son once and only once."
Name some names. Anonymous quotes don't do anything for me. Plus I don't see those quotes as saying spanking is necessary.

You can look through this thread yourself if you care that much.
I don't care that much.

Quote
If you want to play definitions games about what "neccessary" means, have at it, but I'm not going to waste my time on it. I think you're getting at "spanking isn't 'necessary' but its useful", although I'm pretty sure you know where I'm coming from on my position so I'm not sure why you want me to chase definitions and quotations.
Whatever, we both know what "necessary" means.

But just in case you don't, here is the definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necessary
Quote
nec·es·sary

1 a : of an inevitable nature : inescapable b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things d : compulsory
2 : absolutely needed

Quote
The point is, if you don't need to spank your kids in order to insure their safety or personal development, then you're a fucking cock if you do it.

If you want to phrase it as "does spanking actually provide a benefit that can't be achieved by other means", so be it

I'm under the impression that all these pro-spanking people in the thread are making that argument that they'd prefer not to spank if they could, but its a necessary evil* to keep your kids safe/behaving.
I'm under the impression that pro-spanking people who spank don't think spanking is evil.

I'd also rather not give time outs. If spanking is necessary evil, so is a time out. And so it stealing/witholding property.

Quote
*(I'm not saying people who spank are evil before anyone takes it literally and jumps down my throat)
You aren't calling them evil, you are calling them cocks.

I think it is funny that you lump all spanking together. The people who do abuse their kids, and the people who don't even cause pain when they spank.

I just don't see spanking as that bad, like you seem to.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: MacFall on October 10, 2009, 10:30:27 PM
Parents are the executors of a child's rights until the child grows fully into his rational capacity, at which point he is an adult. So whether spanking is proper or not depends largely on whether the child, if he were able to judge the instance with the rational capacity and experience of an adult, would have agreed with the decision. But a child, by definition, has no such capacity: the properiety of the discipline cannot be known at the time, so it is only in hindsight that it can be judged.

From my own childhood, I can remember instances where spanking (or the threat of it) kept me from doing things which, had I not been so prevented, I would regret having done today. And knowing how I was as a child, I cannot imagine any better way they could have taught me those particular lessons. So I say my parents acted totally in my own best interest in those cases.

There are other cases in which my parents spanked, believing that it was in my best interest - and I believe, today, that they were wrong in doing so. But it was simple human error and not cruelty that led them to do it, so I don't begrudge them those instances. I only hope that I have learned from them so that I won't make the same mistakes with my own (theoretical) children.

EDIT: I should also mention that my parents stopped spanking me entirely at about the age at which I could be made to understand their reasons for doing so. (Well, with a few exceptions - spanking was the penalty for lying until I was 10 or so. That's one of the things I wouldn't do with my own children).
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: MacFall on October 10, 2009, 10:34:19 PM
Except you can't time out a kid so hard they bleed or break a bone.
Sure they could.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/17/seclusion.rooms/index.html?iref=newssearch
Quote
MURRAYVILLE, Georgia (CNN)  -- A few weeks before 13-year-old Jonathan King killed himself, he told his parents that his teachers had put him in "time-out."

 "We thought that meant go sit in the corner and be quiet for a few minutes," Tina King said, tears washing her face as she remembered the child she called "our baby ... a good kid."

But time-out in the boy's north Georgia special education school was spent in something akin to a prison cell -- a concrete room latched from the outside, its tiny window obscured by a piece of paper.

Called a seclusion room, it's where in November 2004, Jonathan hanged himself with a cord a teacher gave him to hold up his pants.


We totally had a room like that at my highschool/middle school. Under the first supernintendent/principal I had it was for studying. Under the second one it was where you went when you were in trouble or got ISS (in school suspension). I never had to go there but it was basically an all white room with a table and a chair. Brutal. Some kids had to spend all day in there at times.

That wouldn't have bothered me too much. The worst part about school for me was having to deal with other people. I used to misbehave in order to get out of recess.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: rabidfurby on October 10, 2009, 11:31:39 PM
ITT: libertarians make up excuses for initiating force.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BonerJoe on October 10, 2009, 11:43:31 PM
ITT: libertarians make up excuses for initiating force.

If children own themselves and can have force initiated against them, then nobody is obligated to be responsible for their care...right?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: MacFall on October 11, 2009, 02:06:25 AM
ITT: libertarians make up excuses for initiating force.

It's not an initiation of force any more than the restraint of a violently insane person is. Which is to say, you don't know whether it is or not until the person comes into their right mind (or, "grows up" in the case of children) and says either "you had no right to do that", or "thanks for helping me out there". Paternalism can only be justified in hindsight by its reciever, but it can be justified.

As I said before, there were times when my parents using corporal punishment saved me from a LOT of suffering. If they hadn't been willing to use force those few times, I'd be the worse for it. It is not aggression if the reciever of force consents. Having grown into my ability to use hindsight, I retroactively consent to many of those instances of corporal punishment. Thanks, mom and dad, for not letting me harm myself. There, it's not initiatory force any more.

There were other instances where I believe my parents were in the wrong. That was initated force. And having realized that, I'm completely willing to forgive a few mistakes made in what my parents thought, wrongly, to be in my best interest.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: galets on October 11, 2009, 03:54:48 AM
... Having grown into my ability to use hindsight, I retroactively consent to many of those instances of corporal punishment.

I don't know if there is such a thing as retroactive consent... What if you never give retroactive consent? What your parents did in the past, cannot be changed by something in the future

IMHO what really matters, is that children don't own self, they have no capacity to do that. I don't think anybody here talks about spanking 18 year olds. When children demonstrate their capacity to act like adults, they and parents are equals, but until then relationships have to involve coercion in some form, be it spanking, or yelling, or locking up, or lying, or bribe, or scaring, or having to submit to kid yourself.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 11, 2009, 09:13:56 AM
Quote
The point is, if you don't need to spank your kids in order to insure their safety or personal development, then you're a fucking cock if you do it.

If you want to phrase it as "does spanking actually provide a benefit that can't be achieved by other means", so be it

I'm under the impression that all these pro-spanking people in the thread are making that argument that they'd prefer not to spank if they could, but its a necessary evil* to keep your kids safe/behaving.
I'm under the impression that pro-spanking people who spank don't think spanking is evil.

I'd also rather not give time outs. If spanking is necessary evil, so is a time out. And so it stealing/witholding property.

You draw no distinction between hitting someone(as a method of obedience training), and withholding benefits that you own? If someone works for me, is me docking their pay as valid a method as slapping them?

Personally I really don't buy into the "kids are property till age/point X" argument. If they were truly property you could do absolutely anything you want to them, which obviously no one agrees with, so its an incomplete/faulty analysis of the relationship between parent and kid. If they don't fit the properties of property, then law of identity = they ain't property.

I think all parents would prefer not to have any need for punishment and discipline, but obviously that isn't going to happen. The point is A) does spanking provide a significant benefit that can't be achieved by other methods B) is spanking as valid as other methods of punishment

Not buying your kid ice cream or not letting them use a toy  reinforces to them the benefits your provide as a parent, it works on a quid pro quo, and it teaches kids how behaving can be in their interest. Spanking relies on fear and blind authority. In fact above all I find the most useful disciplining technique is simply talking to kids and trying to make them understand why what they've done isn't very nice. I've never had to hit my nephews to get them to share with each other.

I'm glad people like Tuttle and Hellbilly are here to fight the corner of non spanking. As Hellbilly said, if your kid is so small they have difficulty understanding the world in a safe way, then spanking is no substitute for prevention of harm. In my own experience I've never had a problem keeping 0-3 year old twins safe under my supervision without resorting to spanking, and clearly other full time parents haven't either. This isn't proof spanking is 100% unnecessary, but neither is parents who say they need to spank proof that it is.

If people are going to keep throwing the spectre of injured/dead kids into the debate, then they're going to have to back it up with facts that not using spanking leads to more injuries/deaths.

I criticize spanking and proponents of spanking because I think its unnecessary, vulgar and an unthinking method of discipline. If I'm wrong prove it, because I don't really care if I'm "insulting" anyone by calling the truth as I see it, especially if those people aren't interested in defending their view of the truth with facts.

In case anyone couldn't be bothered reading the waffle above, here's a simplified version.

Does not spanking lead to any greater risk of to the welfare of kids? If so prove it. And if you're going to claim that sometimes/ for some kids spanking is the ONLY thing that will work, I'd like to see that proven beyond anecdote.

"Sometimes I can't see any other way to discipline my kids without spanking" is not the same as "sometimes there is no other way to discipline my kid without spanking"
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 11, 2009, 11:22:23 AM
You draw no distinction between hitting someone(as a method of obedience training), and withholding benefits that you own? If someone works for me, is me docking their pay as valid a method as slapping them?
A time out doesn't involve taking something you own. If you put an employee in time out, and they cannot leave if they want to, that is called kidnapping. You also don't own your kids toys. That is their property, not yours. If you took away your employees car or cellphone without their consent, that would be stealing.

Stop acting like timeouts and taking someones property isn't the use of force, because it is.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 11, 2009, 11:42:08 AM
You draw no distinction between hitting someone(as a method of obedience training), and withholding benefits that you own? If someone works for me, is me docking their pay as valid a method as slapping them?
A time out doesn't involve taking something you own. If you put an employee in time out, and they cannot leave if they want to, that is called kidnapping. You also don't own your kids toys. That is their property, not yours. If you took away your employees car or cellphone without their consent, that would be stealing.

Stop acting like timeouts and taking someones property isn't the use of force, because it is.

You can say to your employee, if you want to keep your job, you need to stay behind and catch up on work you've missed/done poorly. Is that kidnapping?

Well I've never done a time out, but since its done on your property, I think its perfectly acceptable to say, okay if you're going to flip out you can't stay in the TV room with your brother and you need to go sit in your room for a while till you calm down.

I don't know any parents who would actually gift property 100% unconditionally, and I think you and I both know that in general parents are just "renting" their kids stuff, so its not "stealing".

Does your kid have full ownership over his room? If so you should never be able to kick them out, and when they're old enough to move out, they should be able to rent out their room to lodgers and you shouldn't be able to do jack shit, otherwise your infringing his property rights.

You continually try to drag this argument to the absurd and the obtuse, I guess so you can "catch me out" on a definition or turn of phrase, so its pretty clear you're not actually interested in addressing any claim of fact on the benefits of spanking compared to not spanking.

I'm still the only person in this thread to have produced any stats on the harm/benefits of hitting kids as a method of obedience training.

You can try to make this conversation about time outs are kidnapping and taking away toys is theft if you want, but since you are the one who's claiming its fine to hit kids (i guess as long as you don't leave a mark), its up to you to meet that burden of proof.

I've never claimed that time outs and toy confiscation are without any negative consequence, what I have been claiming, and what has not been addressed by anyone here is proof that spanking provides a significant benefit to a childs welfare that can't be achieved by other discipline methods.

I look forward to you finding a way to avoid addressing the only point i care about again.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Laetitia on October 11, 2009, 12:17:37 PM
I look forward to you finding a way to avoid addressing the only point i care about again.


Any potential long term harm from any other methods of discipline, along with the idea that all forms of discipline aside from shunning, are some form of initiated force...just not worthy of discussion, in your point of view?

Interesting.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: hellbilly on October 11, 2009, 06:29:40 PM
Somebody already said it here.. that kids do have the ability to reason. That's the logic I follow.
And they also have the ability to be unreasonable, and disobey.

Absolutely. I don't think you'll hear from any parent that their kids are perfect. My kids "disobey" on a daily basis, I don't consider that to be an offense (in most cases) and I don't take it as a personal insult and want to lash out at them over it. I never even think in terms of whether the kids have "obeyed" me, too harsh a word.

Pops: Daughter, 2 and a half, it is time to brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: No! I not brush teef!
Pops: Come on, let's brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: *runs away*
Pops: You know you must brush your teeth, let's go ahead and do it and then enjoy a story together shall we?
Daughter, 2 and a half: 'kay.

...is better than..

Pops: Daughter, 2 and a half, it is time to brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: No! I not brush teef!
Daughter, 2 and a half: *runs away*
Pops: *runs screaming* GET OVER HER NAOW!! WE'RE BRUSHING YOUR TEEEEETH RIGHT NAOW! *thwacks to the bottom* GET.OVER.HERE.RIGHT.NOW.BRAT! *pulls kids arm, jabs toothbrush at her*
Daughter, 2 and a half: *bbaaaaawllll*
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Rillion on October 11, 2009, 06:33:34 PM
Pops: Daughter, 2 and a half, it is time to brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: No! I not brush teef!
Pops: Come on, let's brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: *runs away*
Pops: You know you must brush your teeth, let's go ahead and do it and then enjoy a story together shall we?
Daughter, 2 and a half: 'kay.

...is better than..

Pops: Daughter, 2 and a half, it is time to brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: No! I not brush teef!
Daughter, 2 and a half: *runs away*
Pops: *runs screaming* GET OVER HER NAOW!! WE'RE BRUSHING YOUR TEEEEETH RIGHT NAOW! *thwacks to the bottom* GET.OVER.HERE.RIGHT.NOW.BRAT! *pulls kids arm, jabs toothbrush at her*
Daughter, 2 and a half: *bbaaaaawllll*

I think it would be great if "Daughter 2 and a half" were actually your daughter's name.  Like she was part of the Borg.  I guess then it would be Daughter 2.5, though. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 11, 2009, 07:43:21 PM
I look forward to you finding a way to avoid addressing the only point i care about again.


Any potential long term harm from any other methods of discipline, along with the idea that all forms of discipline aside from shunning, are some form of initiated force...just not worthy of discussion, in your point of view?

Interesting.

No, they're plenty worthy of discussion, but as far as I can tell this thread is about spanking kids.

I'm not interested in getting into a war over which parenting method is best.

When I challenged people over whether spanking is neccessary, I got a load of hogwash about if you don't spank you're kids they will run into traffic and injure themselves. No one as of yet has done anything to prove non-spanked kids get into any more accidents than spanked kids, or even that there is any significant benefit to spanking over not spanking.

I've found no evidence that not spanking kids leads to any significant problems, and plenty of evidence that spanking, particularly when overdone is damaging to a child. Now maybe there are legions of kids getting into accidents because their parents don't hit them, if someone shows me the evidence I'll be happy to change my position.

Now on balance I don't think spanking is the most crucial part of parenting, and certainly not all parents who spank are "bad" parents, but if it can't be proven to be beneficial, I don't think parents shouldn't be doing it, and I don't see why people are getting bothered by my criticism of it if they're not willing or able to prove it beyond anecdote.

There seems to be a whole bunch of "I was spanked and I turned out okay, so its okay for my kids" going on, which suggests people are doing it out of habit/tradition. which incidently is exactly the kind of attitude that comes with circumcision, something I also find distasteful.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Evil Muppet on October 11, 2009, 08:31:49 PM
here is how I see this. 

Whether you spank a child or not isn't much of the issue.  People are looking at the kind of punishment that is being implimented.  What I've noticed from my own personal anecdotal evidence is that what causes problems is when punishment is severe, inconsistent and unjust. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on October 11, 2009, 10:19:17 PM
here is how I see this. 

Whether you spank a child or not isn't much of the issue.  People are looking at the kind of punishment that is being implimented.  What I've noticed from my own personal anecdotal evidence is that what causes problems is when punishment is severe, inconsistent and unjust. 

There are recommended guidelines for corporeal punishment for children that psychologists have. They say you shouldn't punish out of anger. That pain is not the purpose, and that the hand is not an appropriate place to strike on account of the small bones, etc.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: hellbilly on October 11, 2009, 10:25:20 PM
Pops: Daughter, 2 and a half, it is time to brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: No! I not brush teef!
Pops: Come on, let's brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: *runs away*
Pops: You know you must brush your teeth, let's go ahead and do it and then enjoy a story together shall we?
Daughter, 2 and a half: 'kay.

...is better than..

Pops: Daughter, 2 and a half, it is time to brush your teeth.
Daughter, 2 and a half: No! I not brush teef!
Daughter, 2 and a half: *runs away*
Pops: *runs screaming* GET OVER HER NAOW!! WE'RE BRUSHING YOUR TEEEEETH RIGHT NAOW! *thwacks to the bottom* GET.OVER.HERE.RIGHT.NOW.BRAT! *pulls kids arm, jabs toothbrush at her*
Daughter, 2 and a half: *bbaaaaawllll*

I think it would be great if "Daughter 2 and a half" were actually your daughter's name.  Like she was part of the Borg.  I guess then it would be Daughter 2.5, though. 

:)
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 12, 2009, 08:33:02 AM
here is how I see this.  

Whether you spank a child or not isn't much of the issue.  People are looking at the kind of punishment that is being implimented.  What I've noticed from my own personal anecdotal evidence is that what causes problems is when punishment is severe, inconsistent and unjust.  

There are recommended guidelines for corporeal punishment for children that psychologists have. They say you shouldn't punish out of anger. That pain is not the purpose, and that the hand is not an appropriate place to strike on account of the small bones, etc.

Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to change an undesirable attitude or behaviour. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment)

Also if your gonna puss out with "psychologists say X", you might as well go into actual solid data, of which seems to be overwhelmingly against corporal punishment providing any significant benefit.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Willbert on October 14, 2009, 07:27:36 PM
I thought this was a boring show topic, but I suppose I'll put my 'silver round' in.

I have a 3 year old myself, and I think that having a child means you put the welfare of the wee lass/lad above all others. Don't have the time? Find it. Don't have the resources? Make them. Don't have the patience? Learn it or fake it. Simple as that.

Most of the time I've known parents who spank, the spanking was an act of frustration on the part of the parent. Time to put your frustrations aside and examine your priorities.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on October 15, 2009, 01:19:29 AM
here is how I see this.  

Whether you spank a child or not isn't much of the issue.  People are looking at the kind of punishment that is being implimented.  What I've noticed from my own personal anecdotal evidence is that what causes problems is when punishment is severe, inconsistent and unjust.  

There are recommended guidelines for corporeal punishment for children that psychologists have. They say you shouldn't punish out of anger. That pain is not the purpose, and that the hand is not an appropriate place to strike on account of the small bones, etc.

Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to change an undesirable attitude or behaviour. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment)

Also if your gonna puss out with "psychologists say X", you might as well go into actual solid data, of which seems to be overwhelmingly against corporal punishment providing any significant benefit.

Its a shame I didnt take my psychology textbooks with me when I moved, because I had the resources in one of them to respond to this. The only one book on the subject I have now that mentions corporeal punishment and is written by a doctor of psychology doesnt approve of it. Darn.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 15, 2009, 09:49:21 AM
here is how I see this.  

Whether you spank a child or not isn't much of the issue.  People are looking at the kind of punishment that is being implimented.  What I've noticed from my own personal anecdotal evidence is that what causes problems is when punishment is severe, inconsistent and unjust.  

There are recommended guidelines for corporeal punishment for children that psychologists have. They say you shouldn't punish out of anger. That pain is not the purpose, and that the hand is not an appropriate place to strike on account of the small bones, etc.

Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to change an undesirable attitude or behaviour. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment)

Also if your gonna puss out with "psychologists say X", you might as well go into actual solid data, of which seems to be overwhelmingly against corporal punishment providing any significant benefit.

Its a shame I didnt take my psychology textbooks with me when I moved, because I had the resources in one of them to respond to this. The only one book on the subject I have now that mentions corporeal punishment and is written by a doctor of psychology doesnt approve of it. Darn.

Do those textbooks happen to have any studies that show corporal punishment? I linked to a Metastudy that covered 88 studies over a 62 year period (http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html), that shows at best Spanking is provides no significant benefit over other discipline, and at worst can be extremely damaging.

Thats hard fact. Deal with it. I can find a bunch of psychologists that say spanking is harmful but it doesn't matter compared to solid data. Don't get me wrong, most of the major problems with spanking comes from its use in excess, the study doesn't show that any level of spanking is harmful, its not intended to.

What it does show is that spanking doesn't provide any significant benefit, and generally mild spanking of your kid is not any more beneficial than no spanking, and excessive spanking is a hell of alot more damaging than no spanking.

In fact the only real solid thing the study found in favor of spanking, is that if you hit a kid it will make them shut up/comply immediately, but its meaningless since its not correlated with any long term benefit, and there are literally dozens of methods that can be used in its place.

Funnily enough they found that parents who most overused spanking where the ones themselves who were excessively spanked.

I'll happily revise my position if new data comes to light. Fuck knows I haven't read every study on the issue, and I'm not likely to.

If you can find a flaw in the methodology that you think invalidates the study, let me hear it, if you can find a more comprehensive study that shows spanking is beneficial overall, bring that out, if not just accept your pro-spanking position comes from nothing but anecdote, personal preference, inherited tradition, and possibly lazyness/emotion.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on October 15, 2009, 02:33:51 PM

1.Do those textbooks happen to have any studies that show corporal punishment? I linked to a Metastudy that covered 88 studies over a 62 year period (http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html),

2. that shows at best Spanking is provides no significant benefit over other discipline, and at worst can be extremely damaging.

3.Thats hard fact. Deal with it. I can find a bunch of psychologists that say spanking is harmful but it doesn't matter compared to solid data. Don't get me wrong, most of the major problems with spanking comes from its use in excess, the study doesn't show that any level of spanking is harmful, its not intended to.

What it does show is that spanking doesn't provide any significant benefit, and generally mild spanking of your kid is not any more beneficial than no spanking,

4. and excessive spanking is a hell of alot more damaging than no spanking.

In fact the only real solid thing the study found in favor of spanking, is that if you hit a kid it will make them shut up/comply immediately, but its meaningless since its not correlated with any long term benefit, and there are literally dozens of methods that can be used in its place.

5.Funnily enough they found that parents who most overused spanking where the ones themselves who were excessively spanked.

I'll happily revise my position if new data comes to light. Fuck knows I haven't read every study on the issue, and I'm not likely to.

6.If you can find a flaw in the methodology that you think invalidates the study, let me hear it, if you can find a more comprehensive study that shows spanking is beneficial overall, bring that out, if not just accept your pro-spanking position comes from nothing but anecdote, personal preference, inherited tradition, and possibly lazyness/emotion.

1.yes
2.so when used correctly its as effective as other forms of punishment
3.yup
4.then its abuse
5. not surprising. people tend to emulate the parenting methods they were raised with
6.not going to. I dont doubt the veracity of the data. Im not really defending spanking here.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 03:18:07 PM
But yet in all this he has yet to prove that when both methods, used equally and correctly, one is better than the other.

If you spank your kids in excess its physical abuse.
If you yell at your kids in anger and say fucked up things its verbal abuse

IMO, verbal abuse is 10000000x worse than physical abuse. I know people who have been though both, including myself, and verbal sticks with you a HELL of a lot longer. Wounds, bruises, and cuts heal, but those mental ones are always open.


It's a preference, and if you do whatever method you prefer right, then your kids should turn out fine.

/thread closed
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 15, 2009, 03:53:53 PM
/thread closed

No.

Who died and made you universal moderator?

 :P
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 04:05:50 PM
/thread closed

No.

Who died and made you universal moderator?

 :P

The universe, duh.

BTW, I admire your style of parenting. My mom used to, for the most part, let me do most shit and then fuck myself up, because IMO its the best way to learn, so if an iron was hot, and i tried to touch it, she would tell me no and that it was hot, but if i still went for it, and I burned myself, then I wouldnt touch it again, thats for damn sure, and I would also learn that my mom is always right. Which is why I'm a mamma's boy to this day. 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 15, 2009, 04:27:56 PM
BTW, I admire your style of parenting. My mom used to, for the most part, let me do most shit and then fuck myself up, because IMO its the best way to learn, so if an iron was hot, and i tried to touch it, she would tell me no and that it was hot, but if i still went for it, and I burned myself, then I wouldnt touch it again, thats for damn sure, and I would also learn that my mom is always right. Which is why I'm a mamma's boy to this day. 

That's what I kind of shoot for. It amazes me to see parents who will protect their children from every slightest discomfort or embarrassment, then teach lessons them with arbitrary doses of pain, humiliation, guilt, and fear.

I find that my child easily makes proper decisions a good chunk of the time. After a poor decision, I am there to hug and comfort. This teaches responsibility for ones self. Also, I give recommendations and advice before decisions are made. This shows that I am to be trusted and that my rules are not arbitrary. Ownership of one's own actions is one of my highest priorities. This is the tool I hope my child will use to become successful as an adult, not obedience to authority.

Of course, I never allow my child to get into blatantly dangerous situations.

There is a tone I can speak in (my wife too) that clearly warns of serious repercussions. If I say that favorite toy is gone for a week, that toy disappears for a week. If I say "if you do that, we are not going to Disneyland tomorrow" then we follow-through. Being careful what you threaten makes it very easy to follow-through.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 15, 2009, 04:34:27 PM
Oh my mom ALWAYS followed through. But yeah she didn't let me get into situations that would have caused me getting any serious injuries, but a burn on the hand will heal, and you sure will fuckin remember it for the rest of your life, and subconsciously, you remember that she told me so. This happens enough times over a variety of situations and your subconscious comes to the conclusion, "Damn, my mom is probably right about everything." Which 99% of the time, she is. I still question her judgement from time to time, but I understand that its her opinion and that she tells me because she wants whats best for me, and thats what truly matters.

Speaking of which, all this parenting talk reminded me of this website:

http://whythefuckdoyouhaveakid.com/

sad and hilarious all at the same fucking time....
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: galets on October 15, 2009, 05:07:36 PM
I criticize spanking and proponents of spanking because I think its unnecessary, vulgar and an unthinking method of discipline. If I'm wrong prove it, because I don't really care if I'm "insulting" anyone by calling the truth as I see it, especially if those people aren't interested in defending their view of the truth with facts.

I agree in many cases its unnecessary, vulgar and an unthinking method of discipline. But I don't think anyone here advocates beating up children. The point that I'm making is it works. Maybe badly, maybe short-term only, maybe in a long run effects are worse than short-term benefits, but that's not the point.

Tell me this: would you agree that yelling, lying to, imprisoning, intimidating child without physically touching him is harmful to the same extent?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Mandrik on October 15, 2009, 11:34:38 PM
Woo hoo, my soapbox call got played on the extended version of the podcast last night (10/14)!  I forgot to say my name, but I'm the guy with 5 year-old twins who used to think spanking was OK until my wife & I started doing it.  We realized that it only made them fear us & it didn't really change their behavior.  Rewarding them for good behavior has been excellent so far, though.  If I ask them to do something and they talk back, I mention that not listening means no penny for the day.  They also get bonuses for stuff like learning how to tie shoes (which they did), and learning how to read more words.  I know all kids are different, but right now at this point in my daughters' lives this method is working great.  We'll have to come up with new ways to reward them as they get older, but yelling & spanking just doesn't work with my girls.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on October 15, 2009, 11:49:42 PM
Woo hoo, my soapbox call got played on the extended version of the podcast last night (10/14)!  I forgot to say my name, but I'm the guy with 5 year-old twins who used to think spanking was OK until my wife & I started doing it.  We realized that it only made them fear us & it didn't really change their behavior.  Rewarding them for good behavior has been excellent so far, though.  If I ask them to do something and they talk back, I mention that not listening means no penny for the day.  They also get bonuses for stuff like learning how to tie shoes (which they did), and learning how to read more words.  I know all kids are different, but right now at this point in my daughters' lives this method is working great.  We'll have to come up with new ways to reward them as they get older, but yelling & spanking just doesn't work with my girls.

You have it down pretty well. You give positive reinforcement for good behavior, and negative reinforcement for bad behavior. B.F. Skinner approves.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: rabidfurby on October 15, 2009, 11:50:07 PM
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: anarchir on October 16, 2009, 12:03:52 AM
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.

Ultimately this. Any dog owner can tell quite easily if a dog has been hit. It is sad, since certain movements will make the dog cringe with fear, years after being hit. I consider that some form of trauma for the dog.  On the other hand, choke collars work wonderful on some larger dogs with thick skin for teaching them to heel.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 16, 2009, 12:37:52 AM
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.

or that hitting solves a problem when reasoning is not an available option.

And please don't try to say reasoning is always an available option. Let's not try to argue and speculate ''what if" scenarios.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: rabidfurby on October 16, 2009, 12:43:28 AM
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.

or that hitting solves a problem when reasoning is not an available option.

And please don't try to say reasoning is always an available option. Let's not try to argue and speculate ''what if" scenarios.

Bullshit. If you're claiming there are non-lifeboat scenarios where reasoning with a kid is absolutely not an option, name them.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 16, 2009, 10:19:08 AM
I criticize spanking and proponents of spanking because I think its unnecessary, vulgar and an unthinking method of discipline. If I'm wrong prove it, because I don't really care if I'm "insulting" anyone by calling the truth as I see it, especially if those people aren't interested in defending their view of the truth with facts.

I agree in many cases its unnecessary, vulgar and an unthinking method of discipline. But I don't think anyone here advocates beating up children. The point that I'm making is it works. Maybe badly, maybe short-term only, maybe in a long run effects are worse than short-term benefits, but that's not the point.

I've never argued that spanking isn't useful for getting kids to shut up or do what you tell them in the short term. How exactly is it not the point if in the long run spanking is useless/harmful?

Quote
Tell me this: would you agree that yelling, lying to, imprisoning, intimidating child without physically touching him is harmful to the same extent?

There's far less evidence to show all those things (except maybe imprisoning) are as harmful as spanking. Maybe they are just as harmful or more harmful but I haven't seen it.

I would of course say that all things being equal (lying, yelling etc), that its better not to spank, than to spank.

The absense of spanking does not automatically = good parenting. In all those thing you've mentioned there is scope for abuse, but there is also much more ability for finesse and subtly. You can yell at a kid for good reasons and bad reasons, but I think any use of spanking carries inherent flaws because its proven to be the most harmful, and because of the principle it relies on (do what I say or you'll feel pain). You can shout at kids without upsetting them. Theres a difference between verbal derision and stressing importance with your voice.

With spanking you have to upset them or theres no point, the whole point is to make them feel pain so they stop doing something. There is no room for subtlety other than "hurt them a bit"/"hurt them alot" or "leave a mark"/"don't leave a mark". Its vulgar and abusive by its very nature. Other disciplining technique can be abused, but they are not inherently abusive.

Spanking is NOT about increasing understanding, its about immediate obedience. There is nothing communicated in physical pain other than a Pavlovian response. If a kid only behaves because they're afraid of being hit, thats not a very good basis for long term development. if a kid behaves because they understand other people have feelings and limits, thats a much healthier foundation.

If the goal of all this disciplining is to try and get it so kids can behave from their own volition, whats the point of a short term quick fix that causes more long term problems, and does nothing to communicate understanding?

Either way theres such a weight of evidence showing that spanking leads to harm, and such little evidence that children are ill effected if they aren't spanked, I can't see any solid reason in favor of it bar lazyness, tradition and emotional instability.

OF COURSE you can not spank and still be a bad parent, still abuse your children. the point is I don't agree with "spanking is just another tool" assertions since they aren't backed by anything but anecdote and preference. It's a tool thats harmful and has no proven benefit other than conveniance.

 My position also contains anecdoteon a visceral/principle level, even if it was proven hitting kids was good for them, I still wouldn't want to do it, but I also have a whole weight of evidence on my side which the pro-side either don't have or haven't yet shown.

 
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.

or that hitting solves a problem when reasoning is not an available option.

And please don't try to say reasoning is always an available option. Let's not try to argue and speculate ''what if" scenarios.

This is a complete bunk argument. People in this thread have made the same bunk arguments about stopping kids running into traffic or grabbing boiling pans. People don't hit a kid to stop them running into traffic, you grab them and you physically drag/carry them from danger. What you might do is hit them afterward (or before) to try and teach them not to do it again. Clearly alot of pro-spanking people can't even tell the difference.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 16, 2009, 11:48:11 AM
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.

or that hitting solves a problem when reasoning is not an available option.

And please don't try to say reasoning is always an available option. Let's not try to argue and speculate ''what if" scenarios.
I agree.

Let's not pretend that youngsters are completely reasonable individuals.  As they get older they get smarter and more reasonable, but still fail to be reasonable people in many cases.

Spanking is appropriate in certain cases.


Now the anti-spank nazis are gonna come out and accuse me of wanting to use a wrecking bar to discipline my future children for the stupidest reason.
 :?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 16, 2009, 12:30:35 PM
Now the anti-spank nazis are gonna come out and accuse me of wanting to use a wrecking bar to discipline my future children for the stupidest reason.

I haven't seen any "anti-spank nazis" around here. Seriously. I don't even say that I'm completely dedicated to never using spanking. I am, however, completely dedicated to raising my child to a healthy, emotionally intelligent, reasonable, adult. To do so, I make sure that I am in control of my emotions when doling out punishments. Is spanking sometimes the best solution? Maybe. I just can't foresee that situation. I was more open to spanking as a solution BEFORE I had my child. Now that I see the effectiveness of other solutions and the benefits of having a child that has no physical fear of me, I am even more convinced.

I think I have brought this up before, but I grew up in a household that spanked. I'm not talking about a lot of spanking, but enough to fear the belt. My stepdad made sure that we all feared the result of making him angry. The result was children that knew better than to step out of line around him. When I was 14, there was an incident where he tried to intimidate me, threaten me, and, at last, hit me (over something that was extremely petty). That was the day when I learned that I was strong enough to stand up to him (it was also the end of my being bullied at school - a change in my self confidence level?). After that day, he had very little control over me. Fortunately, I was a pretty good kid and didn't get into much trouble. I credit my relative level-headedness as a teenager to my time in Boy Scouts and the influence of men who took the time to actually TEACH me responsibility and morality.

I have two brothers and two sisters. I'm the only one who did not run away from home before the age of 17. You see, this was not a particularly brutal household. We were not "abused", but without the patience or maturity to raise children properly, my parents exercised poor leadership. I don't hate them now, or hold a grudge, but they sure could have done better. That's how they were raised and all they knew to do. In fact, they were MUCH, MUCH more gentle and understanding then their own parents. Now it is time for me to raise the parenting bar a little more.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 16, 2009, 01:20:42 PM
fatcat has stated that anyone who spanks their kids to discipline them is a psychopath who should be put in jail or some such nonsense.  He's not the only nutter here either.  Too many Stephan Molyneux listeners IMO.

You're a level headed guy who I'm sure is intelligent and rational enough to determine what level of discipline is required for a given situation.  I don't see any absurd stuff coming from you and I respect your opinion.  I agree with your comment on Boy Scouts helping out with creating a level headed individual, I feel that it helped me a lot as well.  My parents were good at teaching the important stuff, but Boy Scouts certainly helped.  There's something about hiking out into the middle of nowhere with nothing but your pack, gear, learned survival skills, and experienced leaders that takes the hellion out of you (maybe just a little bit) and forces you to think rationally.

My opinion is that reason should be used primarily in order to get children used to thinking as adults.  However some are hellions like myself and need a good whack in certain cases to keep them in line.  And I'll try to push them into Boy Scouts and other organized groups like Indian Guides and Trail Blazers if they are interested.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 16, 2009, 02:24:45 PM
Examples of when spanking is a good idea:

When you see your 4 year old beating up on a 2 year old, you hit them, they say "did you enjoy that?" and of couse they say no, then say "well don't do it to anyone else then"...

Non-lifeboat situation solved.

And to say getting peopleto behave through fear of physical assault is how a LOT of societal order is based upon.
We all have that fear. And it keeps 99.9999999% of us in line within our social construct.

Go find the biggest black guy you know and call him a "nigger" since you don't believe physical violence doesn't work as a good control of your actions.

Better yet, go find a biker bar and call everyone in there a bitch. You won't because you know the result is an ass-kicking.

So if kids know that I probably shouldn't do something due to a (timeout, spanking, loss of privileges, etc.) punishment, if they all lead to the same response, what's the difference?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 16, 2009, 02:46:23 PM
*shaking head*
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 16, 2009, 02:49:14 PM
*shaking head*


I honestly wan your opinion Tuttle. You are one of the people who I genuinely care about what they say and whose opinion I value.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 16, 2009, 03:20:41 PM
And to say getting people to behave through fear of physical assault is how a LOT of societal order is based upon.
We all have that fear. And it keeps 99.9999999% of us in line within our social construct.

If the only reason you aren't out murdering and stealing from people is because you're scared of going to jail, I wouldn't want anything to do with you.

The kind of people who live like that, are the exact same assholes who go looting and raping any time there's natural disasters and they think they can get away with it. The exact same people violence would be justified against.

What kind of lesson are you teaching your kids by showing them the only reason you shouldn't hurt other people is out of fear for yourself?

I never claimed that fear of violence won't effect kids behavior, its just a shit way to parent, and its power breaks down anytime that fear is absent, i.e. any time you aren't around to administer violence, or any time the kid isn't thinking about getting hit.

 there is volumes of evidence to show if you act like that to kids they will be more aggressive, more likely to be criminal and have a greater chance of mental health issues. Generally though these directly correlate with the frequency of spanking, so that parents who spank very infrequently probably have negligible impact. Which then raises the question of whether those instances are actually necessary.

This doesn't mean any parent who spanks is only teaching their kids to behave out of fear. The important child rearing is happening between spanks, not during. Any kid who turns out to be a half way decent person does so because of maturation and understanding, not because they've simply been discplined enough times, via spanking or other methods (except other methods can involve communication and help develop understanding way better than hitting).

If the only way you can get a fucking 4 year old to stop hitting another kid is by hitting them you are running dangerously low on thoughts.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 16, 2009, 03:49:37 PM
Yessir,

Sorry, I found the whole "walking into a bar full of bikers" to be a bit much. But I don't entirely disagree. A healthy fear of violence is necessary. A person without fear would be daft. A person exhibiting the behaviors you suggest has serious issues. If a grown man is running around doing that, maybe he was hit in the head too many times as a child.

The situation you gave with the 4-year-old and 2-year-old was a great example of one in which I would not think ill of someone for using spanking.  I believe it conveys the right message and it is not soon forgotten.

I choose different methods. I would talk with both children and understand the cause of the fight. I would explain to the older child that he is bigger and should not hurt younger children. I would make the older child apologize and make amends for the offense. I would explain why physical violence is only appropriate against "very bad people who want to hurt others" and that we a-are not those kind of people. I would then issue a punishment appropriate to make the message clear that this was not acceptable behavior. I would also make sure that if the 2-year-old did something to provoke the behavior that there would be some form of punishment that fits that offense. The goal when I'm done is to have full acceptance of responsibility of the offense and - eventually - agreement that the punishment was appropriate. Sure, I understand that this can be time consuming. If I had two children then I don't know how I would be able to keep up with them. I'm concerned strongly about character and about respect for other human beings. I believe that self-respect and respect for others go hand-in-hand. I want my child (future adult) to really think about what that other person is going through. Knowing that other humans will fight back is definitely a good part of it.

I seek to be a strong example of principles to my child and do not wish the taint of emotion in my punishment. I want my child to know that I'll be fair. I want my child to have self-confidence, and self-respect and to have respect for others that is built on valuing individual humans.

I also at this time want to point out that my child DOES need to consider my emotions - because considering other people's feelings is important. However, I make it clear that justice in the Tuttle home is completely independent of emotion. Any offense against Daddy is punished the same regardless of how Daddy feels. For example, if they jump up onto my lap and the knee hits my groin by mistake, they get a punishment appropriate to jumping on someone's lap with the knee sticking out. I find that knowing they inadvertently caused pain with their poor judgment is punishment enough.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: PDeverit on October 16, 2009, 03:54:57 PM
Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:

Child buttock-battering for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.

Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.

I think the reason why television shows like "Supernanny" and "Dr. Phil" are so popular is because that is precisely what many (not all) people are trying to do.

There are several reasons why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea. Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:

Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak,

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson,

NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor M.D. and Adah Maurer Ph.D.

Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit www.nospank.net.

Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea:

American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Center For Effective Discipline,
PsycHealth Ltd Behavioral Health Professionals,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In 26 countries, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: anarchir on October 16, 2009, 04:20:36 PM
Spanking seems to be an extreme form of control of a child, and the benefits may easily be squashed by the problems it causes.

The fact is, a good parent should research and find better ways of taking care of their children.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 16, 2009, 06:51:17 PM
So someone says that spanking turns people into sexual deviants????

Fucking wow.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 16, 2009, 08:45:55 PM
So someone says that spanking turns people into sexual deviants????

Fucking wow.
Fuckin namby pambies right?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 16, 2009, 09:32:32 PM
I linked to a Metastudy that covered 88 studies over a 62 year period (http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html), that shows at best Spanking is provides no significant benefit over other discipline, and at worst can be extremely damaging.

Thats hard fact. Deal with it.
Meta-Analysis doesn't "prove" anything. It's not hard fact.

From the study:
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bul1284539.pdf
Quote
Despite the inability of meta-analyses to yield definitive causal
conclusions (Cooper & Hedges, 1994), they do constitute an
effective means of establishing whether the associations of interest
are present and thus pave the way for further research into causal
mechanisms. To underscore the inability of meta-analyses to support
causal conclusions, I refer to child “behaviors and experiences”
or “constructs” associated with parental corporal punishment
rather than to child “outcomes” in the context of the
meta-analyses.


Quote
If you can find a flaw in the methodology that you think invalidates the study, let me hear it,
The flaw is in your interpretation, not the study.

From your link:
http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html
Quote
"The evidence presented in the meta-analysis does not justify a blanket injunction against mild to moderate disciplinary spanking," conclude Baumrind and her team. Baumrind et al. also conclude that "a high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse is not evidence that mild or moderate corporal punishment increases the risk of abuse."

Quote
if you can find a more comprehensive study that shows spanking is beneficial overall, bring that out, if not just accept your pro-spanking position comes from nothing but anecdote, personal preference, inherited tradition, and possibly lazyness/emotion.
What is wrong with personal preference?

Should parents be using your personal preference?

FYI, I have never spanked my kids(I asked them), but I am not against it. I think corporal punishment can be used appropriately.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 16, 2009, 09:54:58 PM
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.
How do you feel about time outs?

http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm
Quote
First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that one does not like. If beatings send a message, why don't detentions, imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey equally undesirable messages? The argument proves too much because it proves that all punishment conveys inappropriate messages and so is wrong. It is a reductio because this conclusion is absurd. Those who want to replace punishment with therapy would not be immune to the reductio either. Providing therapy would convey the message that people with whom one disagrees are to be viewed as sick and deserving of treatment.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 16, 2009, 10:08:28 PM
I linked to a Metastudy that covered 88 studies over a 62 year period (http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html), that shows at best Spanking is provides no significant benefit over other discipline, and at worst can be extremely damaging.

Thats hard fact. Deal with it.
Meta-Analysis doesn't "prove" anything. It's not hard fact.

From the study:
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bul1284539.pdf
Quote
Despite the inability of meta-analyses to yield definitive causal
conclusions (Cooper & Hedges, 1994), they do constitute an
effective means of establishing whether the associations of interest
are present and thus pave the way for further research into causal
mechanisms. To underscore the inability of meta-analyses to support
causal conclusions, I refer to child “behaviors and experiences”
or “constructs” associated with parental corporal punishment
rather than to child “outcomes” in the context of the
meta-analyses.


Quote
If you can find a flaw in the methodology that you think invalidates the study, let me hear it,
The flaw is in your interpretation, not the study.

From your link:
http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html
Quote
"The evidence presented in the meta-analysis does not justify a blanket injunction against mild to moderate disciplinary spanking," conclude Baumrind and her team. Baumrind et al. also conclude that "a high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse is not evidence that mild or moderate corporal punishment increases the risk of abuse."

Quote
if you can find a more comprehensive study that shows spanking is beneficial overall, bring that out, if not just accept your pro-spanking position comes from nothing but anecdote, personal preference, inherited tradition, and possibly lazyness/emotion.
What is wrong with personal preference?

Should parents be using your personal preference?

FYI, I have never spanked my kids(I asked them), but I am not against it. I think corporal punishment can be used appropriately.

As to whether theres anything wrong with personal preference. The answer being it depends. Obviously I don't agree with the preference for hitting kids under any pretext. However when all of the arguments seem to be from necessity, then preference becomes an undesirable factor. I.e. if people are going to claim they HAVE to hit kids, they should be proving it and not just preferring it.

I already covered that potential weakness in the metastudy. I already accepted that the (meta)study doesn't show that all spanking is harmful, and in fact most of the studies rely on correlation, which might.

Don't get me wrong, most of the major problems with spanking comes from its use in excess, the study doesn't show that any level of spanking is harmful, its not intended to.

What it does show is that spanking doesn't provide any significant benefit, and generally mild spanking of your kid is not any more beneficial than no spanking, and excessive spanking is a hell of alot more damaging than no spanking.

My posit was this.

Of all the disciplinary techniques I know of, spanking is statistically the most misused to a damaging level, thus poses the greatest risk for abuse. Also I don't believe theres any evidence to show that kids who aren't spanked have any significant greater risk of being injured (covers - THEY'LL RUN INTO TRAFFIC shit), or of any greater long term behavioral problems (covers - you have to spank your kids to stop them hitting other kids).

The meta-study does not make specific addresses about mild/moderate spanking, because the excessive/abusive cases where included in many of the studies. However this does not mean that mild to moderate spanking does not cause harm or that it doesn't.

At this point I'm perfectly willing to accept that mild/moderate spanking does not cause any significant problems to children, although I have not seen any evidence either way.

However, as I have not seen anyone demonstrate any tangible benefits to spanking versus non spanking, my preference for not hitting kids means I can't see any reason someone would want to do it other than lazyness/unthinkingness and I would hope any parent would have such a preference that they would not hit kids at the very least if it wasn't proven to be beneficial, not just convenient.

If its possible to be a good parent without spanking, why on earth would someone want to do it? I simply don't buy the "some kids don't understand anything but" credos. I've seen nothing in my limited personal experience, and no stastical data to back it up. I think if you've got a child who appears can't be controlled in any other way but hitting, its probably bad parenting that got them there.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 16, 2009, 10:16:40 PM
Hitting kids is a great way to teach them that violence is the best way to solve problems when you're too impatient to use reason.
How do you feel about time outs?

http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm
Quote
First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that one does not like. If beatings send a message, why don't detentions, imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey equally undesirable messages? The argument proves too much because it proves that all punishment conveys inappropriate messages and so is wrong. It is a reductio because this conclusion is absurd. Those who want to replace punishment with therapy would not be immune to the reductio either. Providing therapy would convey the message that people with whom one disagrees are to be viewed as sick and deserving of treatment.

I disagree with you there blackie.

In the right contexts "time outs" are entirely communicative methods of punishment. I.e. if you can't play nice you don't get to play.

Thats very different from, if you do something bad I will cause you pain. I happen to think time outs of the locked in a room variety are entirely fucked up.

There is a fundamental difference between physical pain based disciplines and other disciplines. All can be abused, but pain based discipline is inherently unthinking. One reinforces self interested benefits, the other reinforces fear of pain/obedience to authority.


You can't communicate a message with a hit alone, other than I will hit you if you do something I don't want you to.

Any greater lesson of "its not nice to hit your brother"/"its dangerous to run in traffic" comes with words surrounding the violence, not violence itself. As such its a fundamentally unthinking method of discipline even if you build meaning around it.

Deprivation of benefits is far more communicative than infliction of pain, because it reinforces the role of a parent as a provider, not as a vindictive dictator. It inherently reinforces A) the beneficial role of the parent B) the self interested benefit for the kid to behave even if the parent doesn't explicitly explain either concept.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: sinceredagreat on October 17, 2009, 02:58:35 AM
You Say that time outs are better, but not the locked in the room variety? So the watch wveyone else have fun isn't fucked up?

Whether you are in a jail cell with no window and no communication or in a jail cell overlooking a city street able to call out and see people, you're still in jail.

 
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 17, 2009, 10:11:53 AM
You Say that time outs are better, but not the locked in the room variety? So the watch wveyone else have fun isn't fucked up?

Far less so than physical violence, yes. A parent owns the home the kid lives in, owns the TV, etc etc. If they want to deprive certain benefits it seems far more sensible method of discipline than just hitting. And as I just mentioned, depriving benefits as apposed to inflicting pain reinforces the role of the parent as a benevolent carer, not a ruler.

Young kids can have a hard time distinguishing between their own freedoms and things their parents provide for them, so it seems apt that a disciplinary method would help etch out these boundaries, which hopefully leads to greater understanding and therefore long term benefits to parent/child relationship.

I don't actually know which disciplinary methods I would want to use, as given my limited child minding experience I've not had anything that can't be dealt with by talking and physical restraint.

But I'm pretty sure spanking is never going to be on the cards, for all the reasons I've mentioned in this thread.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: hellbilly on October 17, 2009, 05:00:10 PM
Just a bit of advice from experiences with my kids- acting up is almost always as a result of the kid needing a nap. It's often worked for me when I put them in their rooms for awhile just to have them wind down. If they're not sleepy I tell them to stay in their room until they calm down and then they can come out.

Yeah, I've heard it said that you shouldn't send your kid to their room because they may associate their room with punishment, or they may manipulate the parents into sending them there so they can play with their toys, etc. So big deal if they play with their toys.. and their rooms should hopefully be used for fun times far more often than punishments, so I don't really agree with those critiques.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: jgo on October 17, 2009, 08:37:12 PM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

You don't, because it does work.  At worst, I've seen (experienced) a spanking for one sort of misbehavior and another spanking for a different kind of misbehavior.

The children I've been around who were not ever spanked or had a hand slapped tended to be hellions, less literate, didn't take care of their things or respect the property of others, and lacked drive/ industriousness.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 17, 2009, 10:21:22 PM
If spanking is so effective why would you ever need to do it more than once?

You don't, because it does work.  At worst, I've seen (experienced) a spanking for one sort of misbehavior and another spanking for a different kind of misbehavior.

Thats curious because thats not what any other pro spanking people in this thread have said.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 18, 2009, 10:01:02 AM
Thats curious because thats not what any other pro spanking people in this thread have said.
You should call it pro choice, not pro spanking.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 18, 2009, 05:18:24 PM
Thats curious because thats not what any other pro spanking people in this thread have said.
You should call it pro choice, not pro spanking.

Why would someone choose to spank if they didn't think it was useful tool?

The way I see it the debate is split between people who think spanking is sometimes neccessary, and people who think its always unnecessary.

If I thought that there were some instances spanking makes sense there wouldn't be much point in me arguing against it, or anyone else for that matter.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: The Green Bastard on October 21, 2009, 03:53:08 PM
Maybe this will shed some light on the debate.


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=5224759
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: ciscokid1024 on October 22, 2009, 06:12:44 AM
It's very interesting that the clip shows kids in school. It helps reinforce that the only reason that spanking is used is to teach blind obedience to power and authority.

Thanks for sharing it.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 22, 2009, 07:22:10 AM
It's very interesting that the clip shows kids in school. It helps reinforce that the only reason that spanking is used is to teach blind obedience to power and authority.

Thanks for sharing it.
Sometimes that is necessary.  If you're going to live in someone elses home for free, you better respect their authority with blind obedience or GTFO and take care of yourself.

Spanking IMO is only appropriate as a last measure to enforce parental authority.  But it can very well be appropriate.  I know I deserved it because I was a hellion.  My kids will probably be hell raisers too, and that's a good thing, but hell raising hellions need to learn when/how certain behaviors are appropriate, and with hell raiser children, spanking can become the only way to explain it.  I know it was in a few cases for me.  Until I reached maturity.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: LordMarius on October 23, 2009, 07:58:36 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.




Or, they are just not psychos who use violence against their kids.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 23, 2009, 08:39:50 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.




Or, they are just not psychos who use violence against their kids.
FAIL.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: LordMarius on October 23, 2009, 09:49:04 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.




Or, they are just not psychos who use violence against their kids.
FAIL.


Whut? If you hit your own kids you're a damn psycho. How the fuck can a sane person hit his or her own kids?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BonerJoe on October 23, 2009, 10:21:20 AM
How can a sane person initiate force and tell a kid to stop doing something?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 23, 2009, 10:30:56 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.




Or, they are just not psychos who use violence against their kids.
Do you consider giving shots and drawing blood from a kid as violence?

I'm pretty sure sticking sharp metal objects into a person is considered initiation of force.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 23, 2009, 10:33:32 AM
How can a sane person initiate force and tell a kid to stop doing something?
Do time outs and/or taking a child's property away count as the initiation of force?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 23, 2009, 12:53:04 PM
How can a sane person initiate force and tell a kid to stop doing something?
Do time outs and/or taking a child's property away count as the initiation of force?

Dude enough with the childs property bullshit.

Does your child own his room? Can he rent it out to backpackers if he wants? Can he sell his room when he leaves home?

You don't gift kids part of your own house, and most reasonable parents dont unconditionally gift most other things, its an implicit assumption that they're things parents have bought and are allowing kids to use. If you insist on being a pedant about it, heres what you do. Don't give your kids anything, lend them things, that way it isn't their property your confiscating, its yours.

Except most parents don't find the need to be so explicitly crass, its more of, "here, this is yours (but if you fuck around I might take it off you/deprive your access to it)".

Do you let your kids watch as much TV as they want no questions asked? Is it your TV or the kids TV?

Time outs don't count as initiation of force if they're based on your property
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 23, 2009, 02:29:05 PM
How can a sane person initiate force and tell a kid to stop doing something?
Do time outs and/or taking a child's property away count as the initiation of force?

Dude enough with the childs property bullshit.

Does your child own his room? Can he rent it out to backpackers if he wants? Can he sell his room when he leaves home?

You don't gift kids part of your own house, and most reasonable parents dont unconditionally gift most other things, its an implicit assumption that they're things parents have bought and are allowing kids to use. If you insist on being a pedant about it, heres what you do. Don't give your kids anything, lend them things, that way it isn't their property your confiscating, its yours.

Whatever. My kids get gifts. Relatives give them money and they buy things with that money. That stuff is their property. And you know what, I am ok with restricting them from using that property.


Quote
Time outs don't count as initiation of force if they're based on your property
What if you are out in public, and it has nothing to do with your property?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 23, 2009, 02:59:23 PM
Jesus Christ!

Spanking your kids hurts them! It sends a very real strong message of PAIN! You are teaching them violence as a problem solving technique. You are demonstrating to them how to solve problems by instigating force.

How about using some patience, creativity, intellect, imagination, and love. What would you be demonstrating then?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BonerJoe on October 23, 2009, 03:03:16 PM
You are demonstrating to them how to solve problems by instigating force.

LOL.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 23, 2009, 03:10:38 PM
Quote
Time outs don't count as initiation of force if they're based on your property
What if you are out in public, and it has nothing to do with your property?


I don't see how it would be possible bar locking them in a car.

I'm not a great fan of time outs or confiscations, but i do think they're a better alternative to spanking.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 23, 2009, 03:16:07 PM
Spanking your kids hurts them! It sends a very real strong message of PAIN! You are teaching them violence as a problem solving technique. You are demonstrating to them how to solve problems by instigating force.
Then taking their property way must be teaching them stealing as a problem solving technique. And time outs must teach them how to solve problems by restricting other peoples freedom.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 23, 2009, 03:22:17 PM
Quote
Time outs don't count as initiation of force if they're based on your property
What if you are out in public, and it has nothing to do with your property?


I don't see how it would be possible bar locking them in a car.
You  and some kids are playing at the park, one kid does something bad, that kid gets punished with a timeout on a bench.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on October 23, 2009, 03:56:55 PM
Quote

I don't see how it would be possible bar locking them in a car.

I'm not a great fan of time outs or confiscations, but i do think they're a better alternative to spanking.

You're not a fan??? You don't have any fucking kids!
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 23, 2009, 05:31:49 PM
Spanking your kids hurts them! It sends a very real strong message of PAIN! You are teaching them violence as a problem solving technique. You are demonstrating to them how to solve problems by instigating force.
Then taking their property way must be teaching them stealing as a problem solving technique. And time outs must teach them how to solve problems by restricting other peoples freedom.

The difference here is that spanking is unnecessary violence. You might argue that taking away an object is unnecessary, but is, at least, not an actual attack. Spanking creates a real fear of violence, as opposed to restrictions, which creates fear of inconvenience.

Are you taking the position that spanking is precisely equal in harm to restrictions, or are you just testing my argumentative process?
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BonerJoe on October 23, 2009, 05:39:15 PM
Quote

I don't see how it would be possible bar locking them in a car.

I'm not a great fan of time outs or confiscations, but i do think they're a better alternative to spanking.

You're not a fan??? You don't have any fucking kids!

He couldn't have kids, he'd disappear in a puff of logic.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BonerJoe on October 23, 2009, 05:40:16 PM
The difference here is that spanking is unnecessary violence. You might argue that taking away an object is unnecessary, but is, at least, not an actual attack. Spanking creates a real fear of violence, as opposed to restrictions, which creates fear of inconvenience.

Forcing a screaming and uncooperative kid to go to time out is violence.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 23, 2009, 05:42:07 PM
Forcing a screaming and uncooperative kid to go to time out is violence.

Sure. And closing the gate so your toddler doesn't run out into the street is imprisonment.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BonerJoe on October 23, 2009, 05:54:47 PM
Forcing a screaming and uncooperative kid to go to time out is violence.

Sure. And closing the gate so your toddler doesn't run out into the street is imprisonment.

Now you're getting it.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 23, 2009, 06:43:03 PM
Quote

I don't see how it would be possible bar locking them in a car.

I'm not a great fan of time outs or confiscations, but i do think they're a better alternative to spanking.

You're not a fan??? You don't have any fucking kids!

Yeah and I've never been raped or robbed, I guess I shouldn't have an opinion on those things either.

Be sure to throw that argument into any discussion where someone doesn't have 1st hand experience of the subject matter.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 23, 2009, 08:54:43 PM
Are you taking the position that spanking is precisely equal in harm to restrictions
No. I think it would be hard to make a meaningful comparison between the two things, and maybe no harm is involved.

There are different levels of spanking, just like there are with restrictions.

At the lowest level, spanking doesn't even cause pain. I'm not sure what the point is, but it exists. At the other end of the spectrum it becomes abuse. The same thing can happen with restrictions.

That said, I have restricted my kids from thing like video games, but I haven't spanked them.

It seems like there can be initiation of force in many different kinds of punishment, not just spanking.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: LordMarius on October 25, 2009, 04:02:56 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.




Or, they are just not psychos who use violence against their kids.
Do you consider giving shots and drawing blood from a kid as violence?

I'm pretty sure sticking sharp metal objects into a person is considered initiation of force.


Please tell me you didn't just equate providing medical treatment and hitting children!
Hitting children! I guess it's more fun than trying to be violent against someone who can actually defend themselves. Is this something one can talk about openly in the US? "Hey, I just kicked my kids ass, I'm such a great fucking parent with my medieval parenting techniques  based on using violence against my own kids".

Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 25, 2009, 11:00:10 AM
I have this to say on spanking:

The ones who never spank are either saints, or they don't have children.




Or, they are just not psychos who use violence against their kids.
Do you consider giving shots and drawing blood from a kid as violence?

I'm pretty sure sticking sharp metal objects into a person is considered initiation of force.


Please tell me you didn't just equate providing medical treatment and hitting children!
Hitting children! I guess it's more fun than trying to be violent against someone who can actually defend themselves. Is this something one can talk about openly in the US? "Hey, I just kicked my kids ass, I'm such a great fucking parent with my medieval parenting techniques  based on using violence against my own kids".
Some medical treatments involve stabbing children!

What sane person would stab their child, or allow someone else to stab their child!
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 26, 2009, 10:09:34 PM
Please tell me you didn't just equate providing medical treatment and hitting children!
Hitting children! I guess it's more fun than trying to be violent against someone who can actually defend themselves. Is this something one can talk about openly in the US? "Hey, I just kicked my kids ass, I'm such a great fucking parent with my medieval parenting techniques  based on using violence against my own kids".
Some medical treatments involve stabbing children!

What sane person would stab their child, or allow someone else to stab their child!

you know why these things aren't the same, so why are you even bothering?

your whole argument by obfuscation thing is getting pretty tired. Deliberately misconstruing/misstating someones argument so they have to clarify it is not the same thing as debate.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 26, 2009, 10:22:07 PM
Please tell me you didn't just equate providing medical treatment and hitting children!
Hitting children! I guess it's more fun than trying to be violent against someone who can actually defend themselves. Is this something one can talk about openly in the US? "Hey, I just kicked my kids ass, I'm such a great fucking parent with my medieval parenting techniques  based on using violence against my own kids".
Some medical treatments involve stabbing children!

What sane person would stab their child, or allow someone else to stab their child!

you know why these things aren't the same so why are you even bothering?
Initiating force or violence is wrong on every issues, every time!
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 26, 2009, 10:46:46 PM
Please tell me you didn't just equate providing medical treatment and hitting children!
Hitting children! I guess it's more fun than trying to be violent against someone who can actually defend themselves. Is this something one can talk about openly in the US? "Hey, I just kicked my kids ass, I'm such a great fucking parent with my medieval parenting techniques  based on using violence against my own kids".
Some medical treatments involve stabbing children!

What sane person would stab their child, or allow someone else to stab their child!

you know why these things aren't the same so why are you even bothering?
Initiating force or violence is wrong on every issues, every time!

you're doing it again.

The whole point is Marius wouldn't support people using needles as a punishment technique, and you were deliberately conflating the two, as if there was no difference between hitting kids as an obedience technique and using a needle as a transmission vessel for  medical vaccines.

If you take your reducio ad absurdum far enough, than having any sort of surgery to an infant is initiation of force.

Giving drugs to an epileptic or diabetic you found on the street, would be an initiation of force, except it isn't reall. Because although the principle of initiation of force is something to strive towards, you constantly make assumptions about consent in the real world. just like you make an assumption when you walk into a shop, that the shop owner is actually consenting to strangers walking in, and you're not trespassing.

 Of course it would be a fucking thick headed person to ever class hitting a kid for punsihment, and life saving medical treatment as both initiations of force in any practical sense. Not a position anyone in this thread has even come close to making.

And you could probably have a good guess at what Marius' response would be, and that taking his argument to extremes you know the other person won't agree with isn't really useful to provoke any sort of progress or insight in discussion, but maybe just cheap point scoring, or to try and make yourself look smart.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 26, 2009, 11:05:54 PM
having any sort of surgery to an infant is initiation of force.
Are you saying it isn't?

Quote
Of course it would be a fucking thick headed person to ever class hitting a kid for punsihment, and life saving medical treatment as both initiations of force in any practical sense.
Just because something is a "life saving medical treatment" does not mean it is not the initiation of force. Practical sense has nothing to do with it. Something is the initiation of force, or it is not.

I'm ok with parents initiating force on their kids. How 'bout you?

Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: blackie on October 27, 2009, 02:18:18 PM
Shouting is the new spanking.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2009/10/27/am.intv.gardere.cnn
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: galets on October 27, 2009, 11:38:06 PM
The way I see it the debate is split between people who think spanking is sometimes neccessary, and people who think its always unnecessary.

Then why are you using term "pro-spanking"? It is completely bogus, and absolutely inappropriate here. "Pro-spanking" is someone who advocates regular beatings as a form of parenting. This is absolutely not what's being discussed here, and you just said it.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: freeAgent on October 28, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
The way I see it the debate is split between people who think spanking is sometimes neccessary, and people who think its always unnecessary.

Then why are you using term "pro-spanking"? It is completely bogus, and absolutely inappropriate here. "Pro-spanking" is someone who advocates regular beatings as a form of parenting. This is absolutely not what's being discussed here, and you just said it.

Similar to anarchists who call minarchists statists ;)
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: fatcat on October 28, 2009, 11:23:13 AM
The way I see it the debate is split between people who think spanking is sometimes neccessary, and people who think its always unnecessary.

Then why are you using term "pro-spanking"? It is completely bogus, and absolutely inappropriate here. "Pro-spanking" is someone who advocates regular beatings as a form of parenting. This is absolutely not what's being discussed here, and you just said it.

If I say pro abortion, and anti abortion, does that mean I'm saying the pro abortion side want to force all pregnant women to have abortions? no.

Don't be so pedantic.

and I'm aware people try to cop out on this with "pro choice", but its inherently.

If I'm pro gay marriage does that mean I want to force all gay people to get married? Nothing I said suggested that I think pro spanking people want to beat their kids non stop, and I'm finding this debate increasingly devoid of any meaningful discussion, and weighed down with a big fuck off bunch of semantics and pedantics.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: hellbilly on October 28, 2009, 05:49:58 PM
I think you should be spanked, fatcat.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: BonerJoe on October 28, 2009, 06:00:24 PM
I think you should be spanked, fatcat.

He'd like it too much.
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Harry Tuttle on October 29, 2009, 05:02:55 PM
...I'm finding this debate increasingly devoid of any meaningful discussion, and weighed down with a big fuck off bunch of semantics and pedantics.

yep
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: hellbilly on October 29, 2009, 05:13:42 PM
...come on out big boy and bend it over fo' Daddy.. come on fatcat.. come on...
Title: Re: Oppinion: spanking children
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on October 29, 2009, 11:58:01 PM
...I'm finding this debate increasingly devoid of any meaningful discussion, and weighed down with a big fuck off bunch of semantics and pedantics.

yep

I find irony to be hilarious.
Title: Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:
Post by: PDeverit on November 07, 2009, 01:00:31 PM
Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:

Child buttock-battering for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.

Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.

I think the reason why television shows like "Supernanny" and "Dr. Phil" are so popular is because that is precisely what many (not all) people are trying to do.

There are several reasons why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea. Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:

Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak,

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson,

NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor M.D. and Adah Maurer Ph.D.

Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit www.nospank.net.

Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea:

American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Center For Effective Discipline,
PsycHealth Ltd Behavioral Health Professionals,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In 26 countries, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Title: Re: Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:
Post by: rookie on November 07, 2009, 02:15:34 PM
Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:

Child buttock-battering for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.

Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.

I think the reason why television shows like "Supernanny" and "Dr. Phil" are so popular is because that is precisely what many (not all) people are trying to do.

There are several reasons why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea. Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:

Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak,

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson,

NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor M.D. and Adah Maurer Ph.D.

Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit www.nospank.net.

Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea:

American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Center For Effective Discipline,
PsycHealth Ltd Behavioral Health Professionals,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In 26 countries, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

you sound like some sort of faggot.