News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Don't Spank

Started by WitchSabrina, July 16, 2013, 08:09:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hydra009

Quote from: "surly74"
Quote from: "Hydra009"
Quote from: "surly74"no it's not.
And yet, the crux of the distinction seems to revolve around the method and force with which the physical punishment is applied.  All the while denying any similarity at all and claiming that opponents are equating the two when they actually class the two in the same broad category of corporal punishment and are already fully aware of the obvious differences.

A mild form of corporal punishment is still corporal punishment, correct?

sure call it whaterver you want...

I have one opinion you have another. i don't really care if what i may do occasionaly, you call corporal punishment.
Finally.  Awesome.  We were sort of drifting into "it's a relationship, not a religion" territory there.

Solitary

I think what is in disagreement here is what is considered as spanking. A spanking that doesn't cause physical harm or gross pain is spanking in my opinion, but when it is violently done and causes bodily harm, terror, or the idea that to get your way is to use physical violence is OK, I think it is very harmful, even when it is just spanking and includes verbal abuse. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

SilentFutility

Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"[spoil:3nl2klje]
Quote from: "SilentFutility"
Quote from: "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).

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.

I'm disregarding the police anecdote becuase it skews the debate. This is about the acceptability and utility of spanking, not its legality.

However I do believe, as I iterate above, that a distinction on the force and context of the strike is all important; indeed, it is teh crux of the thesis. Disregarding it is actually what opponents of my position are propagating, not me.

But I think a lot of the above relies on the connotation implied by the word 'hitting'. I have no problem with the word hitting when referring to spanking as the words are effectively synonymous. However I think the context is what is more important than simply the spanking itself. I don't agree that hitting someone who is not your child and who you're not trying to discipline to reinforce a given behaviour equals the very same. I think they're two totally different games, although I understand that you will disagree.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"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.

Children are old enough to talk to strangers. Their ability to do so is not in question, rather the enforcement as to why it is bad.

I am with you 100% regarding the preferred methodology on learning processes to learn behaviour. However I depart from that juncture where it comes to my belief that a mixture is not neccearily a negative thing. Indeed, my preference would be to not utilise physical methods of behavioural reenforcement, but sometimes I believe it is necessary and a useful tool.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"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.

the law has also stipulated that one can spank their children so long as they don't leave a bruise (UK/EU). Again, I'm disregarding the legal position becuase it is not conducive to the debate at hand (as above).

Quote from: "SilentFutility"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.

I disagree with your reiteration for reasons stated above. I believe that there is a good common sense case for examining cases on an individual basis utilising a scale of force and a mixture of both physical and non-physical behavioural reinforcement. I also don't want to cite argumentum ad populum re: 'generally considered unacceptable' as I know what you're trying to say and doing so would again obscure the debate.

The double standards only exist if we take your stance as given and assume that 'spanking is always wrong'. That is yet to be proven, or accepted. I think it is erroneous to insinuate that one is spanking a child simply becuase one can get away with it. I'm certainly not arguing that, and indeed, as with the differentiation in force used, I've also stressed the context of the spanking is as if not more important. Thus I think equating spanking to hitting someone on the street is not conducive to the debate either (not inferring that you're doing that, but others appear to be).

As I stated above, the only post that has caused me to examine this stance is the one by GSO where he indicated some scientific literature as to the efficacy of both/ all methods in various combinations. This, ultimately, is 100% more preferable than personal anecdote and opinion, and obscuring any sense of a sliding scale by saying that anything remotely physical equates to abuse. The true double standard exists when we don't assume this position to be universal to all behaviours, physical or simply verbal.[/spoil:3nl2klje]

That said, I'm done with this debate as right off the bat I can see that it will be an impasse across the board.

Fair enough.

To add a few words, I'm not actually trying to argue that it should be illegal. I think that the main point on which we disagree is whether or not it is a necessary tool, to which I'd say no; plenty of children are successfully raised without being spanked/hit/whatever we're calling it now. If it isn't necessary and it is a horrible thing to do, why do it? The answer: sometimes it is a lot easier than any other alternative.