Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see a big difference between forcible removing someone to prevent injury (and pain) and forcible causing that person pain to ensure future compliance. I see it as "you did something wrong, now I'm going to cause you physical pain so you associate doing something wrong with pain" as opposed to "you are running into the street, so I'm going to pick you up so that you can't". Or do I not understand how spanking is supposed to work?
The argument was that some kids will respond to spanking but not forms of non-violent punishment. That may be true. My question is, "what about kids that don't respond to whatever form of physical punishment you consider acceptably mild?" Do you draw the line at injury as opposed to just pain? I don't like the association between violence and obedience, particularly with my own kids.
First, there is no injury and a swat is only slightly painful. If the little child is going to run into the road, you picking them up is not going to teach them anything. They are too young to realize the consequences of what could have happened to them.
A swat is more likely to reinforce the idea that they should NOT run into the road. The swat will startle them and the effect is like a wake up call. You are talking life and death here when it's running into the road.
For the record, I was spanked just as most others of my generation were spanked. And I do not hit dogs and cats and I would rarely spank a child. I never even interpreted a spanking as violence. I did not become a violent person. To me all it meant was that I had done something wrong. Things have really gone too far when people are so afraid to discipline their kids and that's probably why we have so many spoiled, inconsiderate, entitled young adults these days.
I came out good and now a 79 yr old adult, but have NEVER forgotten that belt my dad took off and used on me and maybe my brother too. I don't think he did on my sister who was youngest born. Maybe a lot of today's thinking about killing and wars goes back to my childhood (fear days). Mom really did her best to protect her children but dad was big and breadwinner.
he hit you with his belt...oh friend thats so sad.... no child needs that..
Last edited by dizzybint; 08-11-2017 at 10:42 AM..
First, there is no injury and a swat is only slightly painful. If the little child is going to run into the road, you picking them up is not going to teach them anything. They are too young to realize the consequences of what could have happened to them.
A swat is more likely to reinforce the idea that they should NOT run into the road. The swat will startle them and the effect is like a wake up call. You are talking life and death here when it's running into the road.
If my kid does something dangerous where I have to physically restrain them from doing it, it tells me that I shouldn't give them freedom get into that situation yet. My 3 year old understands she can't go into the street without Mommy or Daddy so she's allowed to roam around the yard by herself. The 1 year old doesn't understand, so she's never left alone. I'm sure if I smacked her every time she wandered into the street she might eventually make the association that street = bad, but I'll just deal with keeping a close eye on her until she can figure it out my way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
For the record, I was spanked just as most others of my generation were spanked. And I do not hit dogs and cats and I would rarely spank a child. I never even interpreted a spanking as violence. I did not become a violent person. To me all it meant was that I had done something wrong. Things have really gone too far when people are so afraid to discipline their kids and that's probably why we have so many spoiled, inconsiderate, entitled young adults these days.
If the question was "do all kids who get spanked turn out violent" I'd be on your side of the argument. It's not, though. The question is "should discipline include 'whippings', 'spankings', or 'beatings'?". I don't think physical pain should be a part of discipline. It's no longer an accepted form of punishment in regular society among adults, I don't see why it should be a form of punishment with small children.
(And of course I understand that people disagree, which is why this Great Debates not stuff I'm just right about)
If you feel the need to whip, spank or beat your child, go to your nearest CPS office & sign papers to relinquish them for adoption.
Then go get snipped, your tubes tied, etc. You should not have become a parent.
That's an unfair bias. What "helps" some may not be right for others. Why do you feel the need to chastise advocates for spanking (not beating)? And I dare anyone to say my parents didn't love me or my siblings while raising us all with a fair share of spankings when we messed up.
In a thread about whipping, beating and spanking the anti spankers use none of those words but instead use the word hitting, refusing to acknowledge any argument made that there can be separate categories beyond that or to recognize that people have specified that they approve of spanking only. If you approve of spanking, you approve of hitting, you approve of beating and whipping. There is no distinction. There is no "debate" with someone like that. They simply misuse language to twist people's opinions to appear to mean something they do not.
he hit you with his belt...oh friend thats so sad.... no child needs that..
His father probably did the same to him...so his thinking that is OK to do to his child(ren).
Spanking is when a child is put over the knee and spanked. Giving a swat on the child on the run is another thing...it's still hitting. And yes taking away a favorite "thing" is a good punishment and the child will get it back eventually.
Spanking, hitting etc is active bullying.
Thinking back to a long time ago, telling me I can't go out with my friends etc. would have really HURT. We did not have a electronics to take away.
Last edited by jaminhealth; 08-11-2017 at 01:29 PM..
For those that do hit their children (or were hit as children), at what age did you/will you stop? At some point in/post adolescence, wouldn't the child's instinct be to hit back?
Do you think that disciplining children should include some sort of physical punishment? ..
No, that's ridiculous.
Do you hit adults when they do something wrong?
Hitting someone weaker than you means you don't have the appropriate tools, patience, or intelligence to deal with them.
I'll go one further. I don't think you should raise your voice at little kids, either. In a threatening way, I mean. Sometimes you do have to be loud to be heard at all...LOL!
And now we know (from science and stuff) that hitting your kids makes them dumber. So why on earth would you do it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
