dk

I submit children punished justly (whether by physical, emotional, deprivation or corporal methods) learn to discipline themselves, and subsequently they learn good habits. Good habits are the object, not the form of punishment. Using your explanation as an analogy, If corporal punishments teach a child to be violent, then timeout surely teaches a child to be lonely and apathetic. I find it odd that a nation that has fought so many bloody battles for freedom and liberty would find depriving a child of freedom and liberty a just punishment.

dk

No, children are raised to become healthy productive husbands, wives, mothers, fathers and individuals with the wherewithall and judgement to contribute in a free democratic society. However, obedience covers a child until they mature and develop the habits, experience and character to defend themselves.

BDS

There's no correct answer about discipline.

Parenting is a relationship, like any other relationship. The child, form the time of infancy, is an equal partner in determining the nature and dierection of that relationship. The idea that there are "techniques" that are more or less "effective" at rearing "better or worse" children is simply wrong, because it ignores the child's imput into the relationship. It treats the child as a blank slate, on which the parent can write what he will.

Any attempt at statistical analysis is likely to be wrong, too. Obviously, very ill behaved kids are more likely to be spanked than are little angels. So those who say that criminals are (or are not) spanked, are quoting irrelevent statistics.

The idea that parents should be dispassionate judges is silly, too. We WANT our kids to learn that relationships are passionate, and that if we care about someone, that person can (and if he's a kid usually does) drive us to respond passionately, either positively or negatively.

Farren

..which brings us back to the issue of why adults can't hit adults to 'discipline' them.

Adults will frequently not listen to reason, or do not grasp it. Should a more mature adult be allowed to smack a less mature one in order to give them guidance? If not, how on earth can it be vindicated when dealing with someone a fraction of your size?

This kind of thinking makes no sense at all to me.

Necessity is obviously ruled out since there are now a fair number of nations where even mild corporal punishment has been illegal for some time and these nations are not churning out sociopaths, nor have significant social problems compared to countries where such behaviour is normal.

Its misleading to argue that children don't have the reasoning faculties of adults. Adults do not have uniform reasoning faculties. The requirement demanded of adults to seek peaceful means to resolve conflicts have the effect of encouraging adults to do just that - and other means are usually found. Granting adults the liberty to assault children encourages lazy parenting practices.

The bizarre inconsistency between treating a slap as an assault case when two adults are involved and a hiding as "discipline" when an adult and child are involved, is analogous to calling it rape when a stranger molests a woman and "instruction" when her father does it.

yguy

If your kid can drive you to respond emotionally, the kid is in control, not you. It's why so many parents can't say no to their children.

BDS

yguy: Of course the kid is in control. The point of my post is that if the parent thinks he is in total control, he's deluding himself.

Farren: Since when are slaps considered assault when they occur between adults. I'd bet that 98% of the times an adult is slapped he doesn't even consider filing assault charges. the difference between a slap and a beating is clear, whether a child is involved or not.

Also, kids are often nasty enough to their parents that, if an adult acted the same way, he would deserve to get slapped.

Finally, this size differential thing is ridiculous. Nobody is suggesting that size should have anything to do with it. Should kids get thrown in jail every time they hit their parents? I guarantee that kids hit the parents more often than parents hit the kids. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never had children.

Rape is completely different, so your analogy doesn't hold. Sex between two consenting adults is not rape, even if she is your mother. Rape is defined by consent -- and children are unable to give informed consent. Rape is never resasonable. Slaps, on the other hand, are never consented to. They are nonetheless sometimes reasonable responses to adult's or children's behavior), and sometimes not.

yguy

And the point of mine is that if the parent isn't control of himself, something's wrong. Looking around and noting that most other parents have the same problem is hardly a solution.

Farren

Originally posted by BDS

Farren: Since when are slaps considered assault when they occur between adults. I'd bet that 98% of the times an adult is slapped he doesn't even consider filing assault charges. the difference between a slap and a beating is clear, whether a child is involved or not.


In most countries, a slap is assault, petty or not.


Also, kids are often nasty enough to their parents that, if an adult acted the same way, he would deserve to get slapped.


And it would be assault. Besides that, how do you feel about anything worse than a slap?


Finally, this size differential thing is ridiculous. Nobody is suggesting that size should have anything to do with it. Should kids get thrown in jail every time they hit their parents?


I believe the legal principle is diminished capacity. If a mentally deficient person hit you but was clearly not capable of the intellect required to act within the law, a court would rule diminished capacity. Sure, the person in question should be sheltered from situations where this should happen, but they are not held responsible.

Conversely, if you, with knowledge of the law and sufficient mental capacity, hit a that same person, unprovoked. You would be guilty of assault.

The same legal principle clearly applies when a child has a tantrum. restraining them lest they hurt someone is an option, even slapping them, but this is different from beating as a punishment when the child is not engaging in violence. Its still ethically inconsistent.


Rape is completely different, so your analogy doesn't hold. Sex between two consenting adults is not rape, even if she is your mother. Rape is defined by consent -- and children are unable to give informed consent. Rape is never resasonable. Slaps, on the other hand, are never consented to. They are nonetheless sometimes reasonable responses to adult's or children's behavior), and sometimes not.

Please justify assaulting another adult outside of self defense, as your claim rests on this?

BDS

Very well.

"You're nothing but a low-down, filthy, nigger," said the large man with the tatoo. "What's more, you're a chicken-shit nigger, who is too chicken to stop me from calling you a chicken-shit nigger."

"Oh. Very well," Farren replied. "I guess I'll just walk away, because I believe in non-violence."

Sorry, but to me these would be fighting words, and deserve a quick punch in the nose. Farren's response would not be mine. The law, of course is irrelvent as to whether punching Mr. Tatoo in the nose is morally appropriate or not. Laws are made by humans and are imperfect.

Similarly, if one's child is chanting, "Mommy is an asshole, mommy is a drunk, mommy shoots up heroin, and mommy is a punk" in public, at the top of his lungs, what should mommy's response be? She has to shut the kid up somehow. Slapping him is (although I admit it's a bad thing to do) the lesser of two evils.

p.s. Both of my examples are completely reasonable, and the latter is appropos of how I got involved in this thread in the first place, which is when I said we should never hit our kids except in anger.

Farren

Originally posted by BDS
Very well.

"You're nothing but a low-down, filthy, nigger," said the large man with the tatoo. "What's more, you're a chicken-shit nigger, who is too chicken to stop me from calling you a chicken-shit nigger."

"Oh. Very well," Farren replied. "I guess I'll just walk away, because I believe in non-violence."


Too true (if I was black). If fact, I've acted on this principle in exactly this manner since childhood.


Sorry, but to me these would be fighting words, and deserve a quick punch in the nose. Farren's response would not be mine. The law, of course is irrelvent as to whether punching Mr. Tatoo in the nose is morally appropriate or not. Laws are made by humans and are imperfect.


Sorry, but you presume too much, and obviously have a more violent philosophy, the merits of which you cannot demonstrate except by relying on the age old "But isn't it OBVIOUS?"


Similarly, if one's child is chanting, "Mommy is an asshole, mommy is a drunk, mommy shoots up heroin, and mommy is a punk" in public, at the top of his lungs, what should mommy's response be? She has to shut the kid up somehow. Slapping him is (although I admit it's a bad thing to do) the lesser of two evils.


Not really, its just a common reaction.


p.s. Both of my examples are completely reasonable, and the latter is appropos of how I got involved in this thread in the first place, which is when I said we should never hit our kids except in anger.

Why was that, again?