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?
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.