To spank or not to spank.???

the belief that if one was spank they should spank?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who said that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You did, I'm not saying your making a fallacy, I'm saying that that thought pattern (that you describe to others) is a fallacy: in short you have recognizedly others are idiots, congratulations. Now I'm asking do you believe all who use corporal punishment think that way?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I did not.

I never said I did. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You're free to disagree with the volumes of studies linking spanking to bullying, cheating, lying, vandalism, disobedience, aggression, anger, seething resentment, violence, spousal abuse, a lower IQ, and criminality. but that's your disagreement, not mine.

You're also free to provide studies that show physical violence is an ideal form of disciplining children and should be promoted.

 

Yes but you would have to smack the living crap out of a child to produce that much of a deterrent. Not just a slap or two. Does that sit well with you?

@Electric Fetus....this is stating the obvious, but kids are not rats. Rat psychology is orders of magnitude less complex than ours. To them it's just an electric shock, a danger that happens to exist and should be avoided. They're not going to feel anger, suppressed aggression or resentment, or the contradiction that on one hand he's your father and you love him, on the other hand you're so angry that he feels he has the right to slap you around instead of explaining why he can tell you to shut up but you can't tell him to shut up, you just want to beat him senseless?

 

Gee, just asking a question no need to scrap out that sand in your vagina.

None of those studies separate mild corporal punishment from abuse nor do some even separate based on parent income and living class. I could provide links that show occasional spankings do no harm to the child or it future endeavorers, In fact I think I did awhile back, but that's your disagreement not to read them not mine.

Ok sure:

Most spanking research is done erroneously and does not distinguish causality from correlation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18698198?dopt=Abstract

Use of corporal punishment when necessary does no harm the child (not actual article):
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html

You can't just reason with a child:
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445(199805)60:2<388:PEREAA>2.0.CO;2-K&cookieSet=1

 

So just to clarify: it's a better, longer lasting solution, to mold a child's behavior through fear and pain instead of explaining to a kid why it's a bad idea to do certain things?

 

What is it about the Time-outs on the Nanny show that you ant impressed wit.???

 

Originaly posted by clueluss husbund
“ So you woud whip a 7 year old wit a belt because they was irresponsible wit preformin you'r adult responsibility of insurin that the toddler dont tumble down the stairs... ”

For sure parents ant perfect... but its a irresponsible parent who relys on a 7 year old to insure that the toddler will not tumble down the stares... an then you woud add insult to injury by whippin the 7 year old for leavin the gate open.!!!
Do you still not understan that as a parent it woud be you'r responsibility to insure that gate was locked... not the 7 year old.???

 

No not at all! Rather comprehensive parenting utilizing reasoning, non-corporal and corporal punishment is the best option according to at least 1 study I cited. Other studies at least show non-abusive use of spanking does no harm the child psychologically in the short or longer term (up to age 20) but are varied in details on what non-abusive corporal punishment is. Limiting parenting to non-corporal punishment could actually lead to more deliquiency in children, for example child born or raised after Sweden implemented a ban on all corporal punishment saw a ~500% increase in child on child violence!
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sweden_smacking.pdf

To reiterate, I'm not advocating spanking should be the end all be all of child raising, rather that it should be an option that is available (not banned) and that parents should use it when necessary, when other options fails and at ages and on children that it works best for.

I'm also not against quick negative reinforcement such as a pinch of the back of the neck, simple slap of the back of the hand when utilized with other techniques (such as reasoning) and sparingly. I'm also not against a slap to the face when used in very rare occasions like when your child calls you a "motherfucker" or "bitch", etc, fuck I won't even limited that to children: you could be 40 and if you call your parents that you still deserve a slap to the face.

 

Parents often swear at their kids. Can the kids slap them for this?

 

The implementation and results are shown in a well edited television show.

Incorrect, it is not reliance: if the child goes up/down the stairs, it must close the gate, do you expect the parent to be there at all times to make sure the gate is closed? In this specific case there was an alternate route and the child was forbidden from even using those stairs.

 

No, because parents are the ones in charge. A family is a (hopefully benign) dictatorship not an assortment of democratic equals, again a child is not an adult, does not think like and adult and certainly not given adult rights. Even as and adult would you slap your parents if they spewed profanity at you? I wouldn't because I respect them.

 

So what if they're the ones in charge?

It's hypocritical to make a rule that says your kids may not swear at you, and then swear at them.

Respect must be earned or justified, not simply given.

 

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
What is it about the Time-outs on the Nanny show that you ant impressed wit.??? ”

You obvously ant seen very many of the shows or didnt understan 'em... ether that or jus usin "edit" as a cop-out... cause the show is powerful evidence that when the parents (even parents wit you'r type of atitude) do the Time-outs corectly they are very effective.!!!


“ For sure parents ant perfect... but its a irresponsible parent who relys on a 7 year old to insure that the toddler will not tumble down the stares... an then you woud add insult to injury by whippin the 7 year old for leavin the gate open.!!! ”

Of course its reliance... you'r relyin on a 7 year old for the safety of the toddler.!!!

A resonsible parent woud not rely on a 7 year old to insure that the toddler woud not tumble down the stares.!!!

The gate is a clear an present danger... an a responsible parent will do what ever it takes (even if its inconvienent) to insure that the gate remane closed..!!!

An "alternate route" is irrelevent... you obvously still dont "get-it"... an even if you promised not to pinch slap or whip my 1 an 7 year old i woud still not let you baby set them... because rationalizin you'rself to be rite is mor importent to you than the safety of the children.!!!

 

Not if the rules are different for adults.

Oh it was earned and justified. I would agree that if your parents were neglectful abusive wastes of human life then you should call them what they are. But I would wager a guess your parents were quite the opposite, as for most people.

What is your obsessions with this show? I already said they are very effective, but they don’t and can’t work 100% of the time can they?

Only a divine parent could prevent a child 100% of the time from causing harm to is sibling directly or indirectly. It is not reliance on the child. Likewise had this child be say 16, would you not trust it enough to keep the gate closed?

While I’m at it why don’t I lock the children in separate sterile matted rooms deep underground for the remained of their lives to prevent all harm from coming to them?

Why would I want to baby site your child and why does your preference in babysitter matter? One might say your the one rationalizing your self to be right as more important than the safety of your kids. Your placing your morality over the wellbeing of your children, limiting your self such that you won’t consider option that may become necessary.

 

And why should something be ok for an adult and not for a child? What does this teach the child? Swearing is wrong when they do it but fine when an adult does it? Yes, that's really something to respect.

No it's not about being a 'waste of human life' - merely being consistent with their behaviour. If you behave unjustly you don't deserve respect.

 

ooh lets see, should we let children drive cars, own property, vote, own guns, smoke, drink, etc?

That adults are endowed with rights that they don't have? Later on I would expect them to develop upon that and note adults are not endowed with right but responsibilities that they must keep to or be incarcerated/suffer the consequences, for failure. This may be explained to them at a early age but I don't expect it to sink in until they are older.

More like something to be accepted, just like how they let complete idiots vote, a curse of a free society I guess.

Everyone at one time or another behaves unjustly even if a little, no ones perfect.

 

How about if you look at it this way, does it make sense: "There is a difference between not letting children do something because they're not mature enough, and placing adults as superior in a hierarchy just because they're mature enough."

Do your parents generally curse at you? If they did you might be alloted to responded to your verbally abusive parents in like.