Oppinion: spanking children

[blackie]

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?

[Bill Brasky]

You don't know   JACK!!!   SQUAT!!!

[fatcat]

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.

[blackie]

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.

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.

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.

[fatcat]

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)

[hellbilly]

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.

[blackie]

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.

[blackie]

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.

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

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

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.

*(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.

[MacFall]

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).

[MacFall]

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

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.

[rabidfurby]

ITT: libertarians make up excuses for initiating force.

[BonerJoe]

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?

[MacFall]

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.

[galets]

... 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.

[fatcat]

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"