Don't Spank

[Solitary]

what does this have to do with spanking a child?

Spanking is

abuse is physical

is it not? Also it was in reference to those that have said here that they deserved it.  :roll:  Abuse is abuse, it doesn't have to be violent just to be abuse. It can just be verbal lul.   Solitary

[Hydra009]

I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).

Is not one simply a milder version of the other?

[Solitary]

I can't wait to see the military using spanking to get discipline in the ranks.  :shock:  :rollin:  Solitary

[Satt]

I can't wait to see the military using spanking to get discipline in the ranks.  :shock:  :rollin:  Solitary

The military no longer uses physical abuse...just verbal abuse.

[Solitary]

Instead of, "get down and give me twenty," it's not, " bend over and get twenty," (unless you are a female that is. :shock: ) but " CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW MAGGOTS!" He! He! Solitary

[surly74]

I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).

Is not one simply a milder version of the other?

no it's not.

[aitm]

If spanking is the same as a beating, then my truck is a vette.

[Solitary]

:roll: [youtube:1uedjgmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjH0B7Ts-Ng[/youtube:1uedjgmk] It's not the same? Solitary

[surly74]

what does this have to do with spanking a child?

Spanking is

abuse is physical

is it not? Also it was in reference to those that have said here that they deserved it.  :roll:  Abuse is abuse, it doesn't have to be violent just to be abuse. It can just be verbal lul.   Solitary

abuse has been watered down to the point it has nearly lost all meaning. abuse can be anything now.

what are you saying? that verbally disciplining a child is verbal abuse?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).

Is not one simply a milder version of the other?

As much as telling someone to fuck off is psychological abuse.

There is very much a common sense argument to be said for scales of behaviour/traits in debates like this. It's like saying pushing someone in the street is thus physical abuse. Sure, it's physical, but is it comparable to GBH? That seems to be the argument being perpetuated here by opponents of spanking, and its simply nonsensical. See below:

If spanking is the same as a beating, then my truck is a vette.

Exactly, and I agree with surly above as well.

If we're simply going to define anything remotely physical as 'abuse' then shit, there's really no point in this debate. I disagree with the idea that spanking a child to reinforce a distinct and necessary boundary equates to beating someone senseless with a baseball bat, but if people want to make that equivalence then so be it. The debate will forever be at an impasse.

Indeed, the only reply by opponents of the position I currently hold that has said something I've wanted to examine more is this:

I worked for two years on an inpatient child psychiatric unit with children with problems ranging from psychosis to mood and severe behavioral problems. Corporal punishment is not necessary to change behavior in even the most difficult children. There is clinical evidence that corporal punishment produces less desirable long-term results in conduct and behavior, particularly with increased aggression. Spanking gives parents a temporary feeling of control when they are frustrated with their child's behavior, which is the only positive result I can think of that comes from spanking.

Warrants more investigation.

[Solitary]

what does this have to do with spanking a child?

Spanking is

abuse is physical

is it not? Also it was in reference to those that have said here that they deserved it.  :roll:  Abuse is abuse, it doesn't have to be violent just to be abuse. It can just be verbal lul.   Solitary

abuse has been watered down to the point it has nearly lost all meaning. abuse can be anything now.

what are you saying? that verbally disciplining a child is verbal abuse?

Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference?  :roll: Solitary

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference?  :roll: Solitary

Cite precisely, referring to the thread, page number and post number, where anyone is inferring that this would be a positive and indeed supportable action.

[surly74]

Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference?  :roll: Solitary

how old are we talking about here?

spanking is a little old for 16...i'd find something else, another method. calling a five year old a stupid fuck probably is useless. although it would be funny to hear them say "fuck fuck fuck" all day long. although a spanking would work. wouldn't want to use it too much as it would lose meaning.

[SilentFutility]

it's lazy to throw out the lazy argument.  it's much lazier parenting to give into a toddler or older who is throwing a tantrum instead of riding it out and dealing with it...but sometimes spanking is needed as a tool. it's much lazier to gloss over truly bad behaviour because steps weren't taken early on to instill respect.

spanking your child is not the same as beating your child.

parents want the fear of a spanking to correct the behaviour rather that actually deliver one. I don't know any normal parent that takes joy in spanking their child but those that have instilled a tool that the mere threat will take care of things. that is the exact opposite of lazy.

what works for one child doesn't necessarily mean it will work for another...even if they are siblings so if kids from the same family behave differently how can anyone expect one solution to the spanking debate for everyone?

Why is it lazy to hold that as an opinion? I hardly "threw the argument out", I put effort into wording it concisely.

Secondly, I didn't say anything about giving in nor glossing over bad behaviour. It is difficult to instill respect without striking a child, but definitely possible, and striking people to get them to do what you want is wrong, but it is easier than instilling respect and discipline without hitting. Of course spanking is a tool, and I don't think that any right-minded person enjoys hitting their child. That doesn't change the fact that it is a double standard to say that hitting people to get them to do what you want is wrong and then hitting your child because they're not behaving how you want. Does it work? Yes. Is it necessary? No.

I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).

It's also a mistake to equate spanking with "lapsing" into a behaviour. Young children do not pick up on social cues, neither do they understand fully or comprehend stern talking to's and firm dialogue. Sitting them on the naughty step is all well and good and probably could account for around 95% of corrective discipline (if utilised correctly, which often it isn't), but sometimes children need to understand that acting in a given way will earn them a physical rebuke. And again, this is not to be equated to beating them senseless, it is light but firm physical interaction to create clear and decisive boundaries that a talking to or isolation (eg. the naughty step) could not and wil not achieve. When they're older, then sure, of course, because they'll understand it better.

spanking a child when it runs through crowded traffic is, for me, preferable for setting the boundary than simply telling them no because they really have no clue as to what 'no' actually means unless there's an actual repurcussion for doing so.

Hypocritical behaviour I believe is unavoidable when it comes to being a parent because there are clear and defined rules for children that do [not] apply to adults and vice versa. Drinking for example. Telling a child it cannot drink whilst having a pint. Hypocritical? Perhaps, also legally enforcable.

Don't talk to strangers. Often we tell children this, yet adults do it all the time (pub, bar, whatever). Hypocritical, but then again, adult's understand the rules of engagement much better than children because they've become accustomed to the societal context to which they live.

Don't run in the road (when crossing at a crossing for example). Adults, again, are able to both understand the consequences of enacting such behaviour and also are guaging the risk/reward of doing such a thing. "I'm late for work, I don't see any traffic and I know that there is a high probability of me getting across the road unscathed if I run". We wouldn't give the same advice for children because that would instill a trait that would be unwanted through their formative years.

So 'doing the right thing' is just as subjective as the 'thing' in question, wouldn't you say?

I have not let beating become synonymous with spanking. I said striking and hitting, with no mention of how hard. Would the police be impressed if your excuse for common assault was that you did it more gently than normal? No. Likewise, hitting someone because you don't like what they are doing is wrong, even if you only hit them firmly instead of really hard, or you hit them on their bottom instead of their face. It is hitting.

It is not hypocritical to forbid children to do things that they are not old enough to do, as you didn't do them until you were old enough. How you communicate that to a child is for you to decide as a parent, but I prefer to think that I'd teach my children the reasons why drinking at a young age is bad rather than hitting them until they learn it as a behavioural pattern through negative physical reinforcement, even if I only hit them gently.

What is the "right thing" is subjective, but it tends to be commonly agreed on that hitting people for reasons other than self-defensem or other extraneous circumstances is wrong, and the law tends to agree with this as well. All "rights" and "wrongs" are subjective in this way, but there are lots of things that are generally considered to be unacceptable. If hitting someone is unacceptable, why is it then acceptable because they're too small to hit you back properly and they're your child? The justification that "it works", which is basically saying you get what you want, doesn't really justify it as acceptable, it says why people resort to it, but it doesn't explain away the double standard.

To reiterate, if I know something is wrong, then I will not resort to it occasionally because I can and it gets me what I want, doing so would be lazy. That applies to hitting people as much as anything else.

[aitm]

There really will never be consensus on this. People who grew up with the occasional swat and have used it understand exactly what it is and can easily see the difference between a spanking and a beating. It seems like people who have never experienced spanking must equate it with bloody beatings, shaking babies, slapping infants across the face and burning babies with cigarettes.