BDS

To Daleth:

Sorry if I over reacted.

However, my answer to your post was perfectly reasonable, and my explanation of the lillogical nature of your syllogism was as well.

You seem to think: If killing people is bad, then hitting people is bad. But there's no reason we can assume this to be true (without further argument).

Also, there are many different ways of hitting people, including (but not limited to):

1) A sharp smack on the wrist, that makes a noise, but doesn't hurt at all.
2) A punch that breaks somebody's nose.

Should we think there is anything de facto "worse" about a slap than about an insult? Is a slap going to "harm" a child more than an insult? Is it going to harm him more than a "time out"? If it isn't why should we object to it?

When I was a kid, my parents sometimes gave me a choice: go to a room by yourself for ten minutes, or get a spanking. I inevitably chose the spanking, because ten minutes was an eternity. So how bad can a spanking have been, when a kid PREFERS it to a ten minute "time out"?

AmbiguousUbiquity

I don't have any kids of my own, but personally, I think every kid is different, and dependent on parent-interaction. I look at my friend's kids, ages 2 and 3, and nothing she does gets them to respect and listen to her. If she spanks them, they laugh at her and go back to doing whatever is was they were being spanked for to begin with. However, they don't act this way with their father, who paddles them on a regular basis if they misbehave. So in his case, the spanking has worked. In mom's case, it hasn't. I remember growing up, only being hit by my parents very few times.....and I know I never did what I was being spanked for ever again. I don't think spanking should be used as a disciplinary tool unless necessary, but sometimes that's all that seems to work with kids.

I personally think that nowadays, kids are behaving much worse as a whole. While I'm sure there are many reasons (violence on TV, video games, whatever your niche), I think that LACK of spanking and disciplining has caused a decline in the children of society. But the more I go out into public, the more I see screaming, misbehaving children, and the parents just ignore them instead of disciplining, for fear of having the cops called maybe? But maybe that's me just getting cynical in my old age of 24.

Lauren

JGL53

Well, leave out the word 'spanking' and I completely agree with the above comments.

Spanking is low class behavior, every time, in all cases. Period. it doesn't matter if it's Baron de Rothschilds hitting his child, it's still low class. It is unjustifiable in ALL situations. Period.

Excepting war, I suppose, the only justification for hitting, slapping, kicking, etc. ANYONE, adult or child, would be self-defence - or coming to the defence of another person under physical attack. Attacking someone in a way that can be expected to cause physical damage, slight or great, is, or should be, illegal in all cases.

I have no children, and if I weren't a non-theist, I would thank god every day for that fact.

I was beaten by my father a few times as a child when he lost his temper, but I like to think I would be just as sensitive to this issue if he had not done so.

I determined as a teenager that so-called 'physical discipline of children' was morally wrong and determined I would never engage in such.

I had a change to test myself on this while in college. My brother, twelve years older, had two children, a boy age 5 and a girl age 2 and 1/2, and I baby sat them at least twice a week for about 3 -5 hours at a time for a three year period, including the summers (He was a physician and a lawyer with an active social life, and gone at night quite a lot.).

Although he specifically gave me authority to spank his children when they were unruly, I declined. I decided upon a form of physical persuasion, let us call it, that didn't involve hitting.

Initially, when one didn't obey me, I would wrap myself around him or her like an octopus and not let him/her loose until he/she agreed to abide by my rules.

They both HATED this. I only had to do this about three or four times each, each time for just a few minutes, before just the threat to do this worked.

I think using this method on just about any child (except for mentally challenged, perhaps) starting out at age 2 or 3 would get the results desired. The key is the young age. I don't think you can just start with a ten or twelve year old with this.

Anyone who thinks the ONLY choices are spanking or no discipline all all (except, perhaps, for just screaming ineffectively) just haven't thought about it long and hard enough.

Low class trashy behavior, like hitting children, should ALWAYS be avoided - if for no other reason than because it makes you look like low class trash.

BDS

The class war strikes again.

"Low class behavior"?

Do you mean like eating collard greens and grits?

JGL53

Uh, no. Apparently you are not from the south, ergo your confusion regarding my use of the phrase 'low class'.

It has nothing to do with one's favored foods. E.g., I eat collard, mustard, and turnip greens (cooked with bacon) and grits (especially cheese grits) quite frequently, not to mention corn bread (made with stone ground corn and lard, served hot with butter), molasses and biscuits, sweet potato pie, and other southern favorites. If you think this is 'low class' food, I feel sorry for you.

Low class behavior is identified by ignorant, unthinking, not-giving-a-shit behavior. Re kids, not placing your small children in seatbeats or approved restraint systems while driving, not making them bathe and brush their teeth daily, not valuing education and allowing your children to be truant, etc. are also all types of low class behavior. Do you need more examples, or is that enough?

If the phrase 'low class' really gets under your skin that much, then I will change it to 'lazy, unthinking, ignorant' behavior.

That suit you better?

But back to the specific topic - the onus is on you and yours, as I see it, to give a real life example of when hitting a child (or an adult, for that matter) was the ONLY method, or even the BEST method, of dealing with a problem situation (again, self-defence being the exception). The example should contain a full explanation of why other non-physical assault methods would not work, or at least have more negative consequences than does slapping, hitting, etc.

AmbiguousUbiquity

First off, sorry to hear about your childhood. I hope my post didn't drag up too many bad memories!

Second point.....I like your way of disciplining your nieces and nephews, however, I do still agree with the concept of spanking. I think the problem lies not in the act of spanking, but in the parents who can lose control when implementing this discipline. Age has a lot to do with it as well. I don't think a 10 year old should be spanked, as they are old enough to most likely have explained to them what it was that they did wrong (at least, of course, if the parents are attentive enough to actually sit down and spend time with their child....I see the results of too few parents doing that these days). But with kids of a younger age, say, 6 years old or younger, they are still learning the concept of behaving and what is/is not acceptable to family and society. Kids that age would not (I think) understand why they have to stand in a corner or have a toy taken away. Sure, they cry when you do it, but does it have a lasting impression like a spanking would? There's always a fine line between discipline and child abuse. If we as a society educated parents on those boundaries and offered better solutions (as now it seems to be a 2 way street--either discipline or do not discipline), maybe we souldn't see children act like we do today.

Donnmathan

I just have to throw my opinion, and my hat, in the ring...

I think the most important part of any of this is the description of the action taken. The words 'hit', 'slap', and 'beat' all evoke feelings of being undeserved, excessive, or out-of-control. 'Spanking', on the other hand, is a form of punishment, used and delivered for NO OTHER REASON! That said, it is not what one calls it, but what word actually suits the action taken. Anyone being violent for it's own sake, or out of nothing more than pure rage or malice, is being immoral and hurtful.

The line is crossed when the violence is controlled, and applied in specific amount for a specific, socially or legally defensible and defined purpose - this becomes punishment. Such punishments are designed to act on our most basic of instincts, the preservation of self; by threatening that instinct, the individual learns to link said threat with the action that caused it. Simpified, "I know that stealing the TV was wrong because it resulted in me getting hurt!" The problem is the control; punishment must not be too exessive or without true cause, or it causes fear and resentment instead of teaching, but too light and the lesson isn't learned. Therefore, punishment MUST be unusual, and MUST act on a level that anyone, child, adult, or even canine, can relate to - what some folk might call cruel. This, of course, hits at the core of our society - cruel and unusual punishment!

The question I have is this - we consider it unfair to apply 'cruel and unusual' punishment in our own courts to our own people, but then bomb another country (not referring to Iraq, specifically; it's happened before and will again). Isn't that both cruel and unusual? When justified, it is also quite effective, as any controlled application of violence is! Of course, what I am suggesting would require a massive alteration of our laws and opinions, so I don't see it happening any time soon, but I can wish. Imagine how few drunk drivers we'd have if every single one that was caught was taken up infront of the local courthouse, in public, and flogged! Cruel, yes, but so is what drunk driving can do to the family of someone hit by a drunk driver! Unusual? Absolutely - I imagine that it would become increasingly more unusual as soon as everyone realized that it could happen to them!

Now, I fully expect to be firmly razzed and 'shot down' for this opinion, but it is my opinion, and I will stand by it until someone shows me a better alternative. :banghead:

kkholiday

Bingo! This is a control issue. I don't see how spankings like the swats on the butt or wrists that may be loud but don't really hurt very much can be immoral. These spanks are not for older children who can be reasoned with, but I think they can be a pretty fast and effective tool to get the attention and thus control back from younger kid. Discretion on when and how much is grey area.

However, every kid is different and every discipliner is different. If spanking is going to cause the parent to lose control and wail away because they are mad then this type of punishment isn't accomplishing the goal of regaining control. The parent needs to find something that the kid will respond to.

There are bunches of different ways to leach a lesson, calm a kid down, regain control, etc., but someone else's method might not work for me. It reminds me of different teachers in school. Some teachers would walk into a classroom and their very demeanor got the whole class in line, while others would never be able to keep order with the very same class. You could pretty much tell instantly how much you were going to be able to get away with. Sometimes the teachers who demanded and got respect were yellers and sometimes they weren't, and vice versa. A lot of times the teachers who would allow themselves to get walked all over would get so frustrated and resort to yelling, but it never elicited the same response.

Basically, I'm trying to say that I think there exist some forms of spankings that aren't harmful or morally wrong. I certainly received my share of them, but I really think I'm better for it. That's just how my mom handled things and it did work for us. Everyone may not be cut out to use them effectively, but that doesn't mean that they can't work for some people.

JGL53

Interesting rationalizations, all. And completely unconvincing. And I noticed no one offered up a specific example of when spanking is NECESSARY or the BEST of various methods of discipline available. Can I expect to wait forever for such an example, or will someone step up to the line and educate me? I'm always willing to learn, especially in cases when I don't have a dog in the fight (i.e., I have no children and am not a child myself).

Well, let's start at this from another angle to see if I can get through. Many years ago I saw a individual named Ashley Montigue on a TV talk show. He was a Brit and an intellectual type - I don't remember if he was an actual child psychologist, or a famed philosopher, or what - but anyway the discussion was about spanking. He, like me, saw it in all cases as a failure on the parents part.

He related that he and his wife had raised four children, and never spanked them. They all grew up to be normal people. He further stated that they were all grown up and married now, with children of their own, and none of them ever spanked his grandchildren, and the grandchildren were also all well-behaved, like their parents were when they were children.

His main point was that he was not an elitist. He did not subscribe to any theory that he and his family were genetically superior to others in any way. They were just regular people - (though being upper class Brits, I suppose that makes them quite different culturally from many if not most people on earth).

Ergo (here is the important point, folks, so pay attention) - if he could raise up (4) children without spanking to be well-behaved, and they similarly could do the same with their children, then ANYONE and EVERYONE should be perfectly capable of doing the same, and SHOULD BE EXPECTED to do the same.

And why not? Unless one is willing to admit genetic inferiority in comparison to the Montigue family, then what would be your excuse?

I know - the main excuse offered will be that spanking doesn't really hurt the child. Just don't go too far. Don't beat him/her, just go 'tappy-tappy' on their buttocks. No harm, no foul.

What do I, and those who agree with me, make such a big deal out of nothing, you ask? Once everyone understands that its just a matter of DEGREE, and cuts the 'tappy-tappy' off before we see actual bruises, then what's the problem, right?

The problem, dear hearts, is that too many tens of millions of people for too many millenia just can't seem to figure out when to stop. We need a REAL standard to go by, not a sliding scale 'well, do it up to a reasonable point, then go no farther". You think there can be a general agreement on the definition of 'reasonable' here? Think again.

If the standard is 'DO NOT HIT', then problem solved. You DO NOT HIT. Understand? It's illegal (or it should be), moron. Figure it out, or go back to first grade.

If spanking is not needed - at all - (and no one has made a rational argument here that it IS needed at all), then why do it at all, IF it obviously can lead to real harm - both physical and psychological.

Why are proponents of 'spanking' so willing to poo poo this? "Well MY parents (they will say) spanked me, never went too far, and I turned out ok, yadda yadda yadda, blah, blah, blah.".

Well, your parents didn't "go too far" (and I congratulate them for their contraint and self-control - please pass my congratulations on to them). But MINE didn't. And you know what - WAY too many parents are like mine and NOT like yours. That is a fact, jack.

That's why we need a STANDARD that the most simple-minded parent can understand.

Make spanking illegal, with well-defined punishment for the PARENTS (ha ha). Once the parents can be DISCIPLINED (ha ha) by the law, maybe then we can then really begin to bring the methodologies used to discipline children into the twenty-first century. The spanking of children is really very 1800s, like slavery/Jim Crow, or women viewed as too weak-minded to vote or go to college.

Yeah, boy, if horses and buggies (and spanking) were good enough for great grandpa, it should be good enough for us, huh?

Uh, how about "FUCK NO". There is such a thing as PROGRESS in the field of human relations. How about we make some in the area of adult to child relations? Is it just too much trouble - or what?

BDS

JGL53"S point is well taken.

It's obvious that reasonable, loving parents can spank their kids without ill effects. However, many illegal things are reasonable if, done by responsible, intelligent people. What's wrong with running a red light, at four in the morning, when there's no traffic around?

The law, however is designed to promote traffic flow, and is also reasonable. So, I suppose, a law against spanking would be reasonable, especially if selectively enforced. However, can we trust law enforcement to be properly selective? Since spanking is aq traditionally accepted method of discipline, it seems to me we should be careful. JGL's point, that we should out law spanking to protect those kids whose parents are NOT responsible and reasonable opens a can of worms.l

From a strictly logical and philosophical point of view, ANY discipline might be considered potentially illegal. A "time out" is, after all, a form of imprisonment, enforced by the greater physical strength of the parent. Should we make that illegal, too? Is physical violence more evil de facto than enforced imprisonment? If so, why?

So, based on JGL's reasoning, if enforced imprisonment (without even a trial) is unacceptable, then "time outs' are unacceptable, just as spanking is. Or are we villifying violence to an illogical degree, while accepting other forms of discipline which, after all, are also repugnant in many ways?