Spanking children, is it wrong?

[jjrox32]

I occasionally got hit with a wooden spoon. Ouch! I turned out fine, though, so I think it helped.

[The Dark Lord]

 

*spanks Daan* :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ooh, yah baby!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spanky Spanky!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spanking is good for you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lmao!

[Unrealevil]

I happen to agree that a child needs a good spanking once in a while but what people don't understand is that not everyone knows what 'a good spanking' means vs. beating your child ... and it happens a lot more often than one would think.

[gryphon618]

I'd like to suggest a new, and clearly completely groundbreaking, idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than repeatedly stating the ineffeciency of sending kids to their rooms doesn't work, because there's computers, TV's, toys and gameboy's in there that the child can entertain him or herself with, why not, you know, take these things away from your child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:o! Groundbreaking! Lets take a look at how this works in this scenario:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mom: Bobby, no Xbox for a week!

 

 

 

Bobby: K, whatever *goes to play Xbox and sees it isn't there*

 

 

 

Bobby (thinking) Okay, whatever, I just go play my PS2

 

 

 

Bobby: *realizes its not there* Whatever. I'll play my GBA...

 

 

 

...etc, until bobby realizes Mum took away every dear electronic in sight!

 

 

 

Bobby: What! NO!!! This ISN'T FAIR!!! *starts rebelling against mom*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bobby never really realizes his mistake. Sometimes, its not the electronics that cause the problem; its other things. Bobby could always... y'know, read that latest comic book. It'd take Mom forever to find Bobby's hidden entertainments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(That too, if bobby was just a teeny bit smart, he'd know to keep his GBA hidden)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With a quick spanking and a lecture, Bobby knows why he was punished. Sometimes physical means is the easiest way to get into the heads of children- and we have proof for what, centuries? Look at how children were back then, a century ago, and look at brats nowadays, after the hippies age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, just maybe, but it strikes me as exceptionally stupid to say that a punishment is ineffective because "he has a TV". Well, where I live, TV's do not magically materialize out of thing air. Usually, the aquiring, and subsequent placement of said TV in little Timmy's room, requires the active action of a parent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was an article in a magazine that said video games/TV cause a chemical to flow in your brain. This chemical is a negative one, and really just makes Timmy in a MORE ROTTON/REBELIOUS mood. Not really helpful, eh? And as for the TV in timmy's room, yes, thats true, but its not hard for a child to sneak a PSP loaded with movies or a DS loaded with games into a room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your little brat of a child can't behave properly, how about *gasp* not letting him watch TV, sit infront of the computer or handle a gameboy? TV is - contrary to what appears to be a popular belief in this thread - not a human right, and the removal of the privilege of watching TV can not possibly be labeled more inhumane than inflicting physical pain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Referring to the Bobby comment, Bobby can have hidden electronics/entertainment. Also, getting away from TV is not as affective as a good whack. Thats why its "more humane." Really, if my TV was taken away, I just grab my hidden comics, or my DS and play. Mum can't find all my hidden entertainments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, let's abandon this whole "sending them to their room's doesn't work, there's all kinds of nifty toys there" idea, because those toys are a privilege you - as a parent - supplied in the first case, and if you're not strong enough to take these privileges away, you ain't gonna un-spoil your child with a smackdown, that's for sure. And please, try to remember; TV is not a human right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my honest opinion, physical pain as a deterent is 'cheap parenting'. Rather than going out of your way to explain to little Bobby that pushing Jane like that was a friggin stupid thing to do, and why, making him apologize and mean it once he's understood what he's done, removing a few of Bobby's privilege's - which has the added benefit of hopefully convincing him that they are just that, privilege's, not rights - you inflict a temporary discomfort and then decide that he has been sufficiently "punished". And like all animals, he has learned not to perform action A, because it results in response B, which is painful. Thus, we avoid action A. Here's a thought; You help your child develop a moral and ethical standard by actually evoking a sense of empathy, rather than raising him the way you'd raise a dog? Bad dog, don't pee inside! Okay, not gonna pee inside, 'cause it causes discomfort. Clever animals that. They're a bit lacking on morals and ethics, but hey...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, it works. Plain and simple. Results have been around for centuries. Would you call this generation better than the previous ones- maybe about 4 or 5 generations back? If you would, you're lucky. Majority of the kids I meet are BRATS! I volunteer for public/private schools, and baby-sit, not to mention my OWN school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The taking away of electronics doesn't work. It just doesn't. It could make the kid more resiliant- especially if the attachment to the electronic is very big. I have seen kids who get their electronics taken away, and that only compells them to act worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really, after a small whack, in a few minutes, the child is gonna forget about it. Thats the best time to lecture your kid about what they did wrong. The pain goes away, the message stays. Spanking works well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of that, I have to wonder, how long does it take for a child of average intelligence to figure out that some actions are worth temporary discomfort and pain, because hey, said discomfort can then be endured in front of a computer or a TV because you've "already been punished enough"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not long. But the message doesn't last- and there's really no time to lecture the child. If you lecture before you give the electronic, the child ignores you as part of the resiliant behavior, but if you lecture them after you give the electronic, they are engulfed in the electronic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I probably missed something or misworded something, but I'm too tired to check.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

Rather than repeatedly stating the ineffeciency of sending kids to their rooms doesn't work, because there's computers, TV's, toys and gameboy's in there that the child can entertain him or herself with, why not, you know, take these things away from your child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think alot of parents avoid that just because the find it awkward to remove every electrical appliance from their childs room. Especially if they're anything like my parents are/where - complete unable to cope with technology, seriously you should see my old man trying to install a TV its hillarious.

[Sir_Alex85]

 

 

 

 

Rather than repeatedly stating the ineffeciency of sending kids to their rooms doesn't work, because there's computers, TV's, toys and gameboy's in there that the child can entertain him or herself with, why not, you know, take these things away from your child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think alot of parents avoid that just because the find it awkward to remove every electrical appliance from their childs room. Especially if they're anything like my parents are/where - complete unable to cope with technology, seriously you should see my old man trying to install a TV its hillarious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're lucky. My dad's an audio visual technician. ;(

[BlueTear]

My parents tried both. They'd take privileges away first, and that wouldn't work in the long run. The spanking would. Calling it "cheap parenting" by comparing it to animals isn't really a good analogy, because you don't explain how it's cheap. You just say it is, and throw the example of an animal in there. The last time I checked, humans were animals too, and unless you've radically restructured your belief system you're a moral relativist who doesn't believe in an objective standard of morality so throwing the whole "animals don't have morals" is irrelevant as humans don't either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see what is so wrong with physical pain when you've exhausted other options?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I fail to see how moral relativism excludes human morality. In fact, I'd say it's more of the opposite; I aknowledge a myriad of moral codes who - objectively - are pretty much the same. I then also aknowledge that the "justness" of each of these individual codes can never be mesured objectively except by an observer completely untainted by moral and ethical codes, which in reality means just about no one. So, I'll cheerfully hug my subjective sets of morals and ethics and I'll call them just, and I'll fight, kill and if neccesary, die to defend them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though, biologically, we are animals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second of all, I'll clarify why I think it's cheap parenting:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When is your child old enough to grasp these oh-so-complex questions like... "Don't walk into the road!"? A dog, a smart dog, reaches the intellectual level of a human three year old. What might a three year old do that would warrant a spanking? I'll stick with the whole walk into the road theme cause if I was a parent, it would scare the hell out of _me_.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When is the lesson, and by that I mean the ensuing physical pain, not the result of my own neglience as a parent? "Walking into the road will kill you." It is not a complex moral question that an adult, or even an 8 year old, will have trouble grasping. So if the kid still does it, at this age, then obviously I havn't quite managed to explain to the child why I don't want him to do this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, as he grows older, he will undoubtly figure this out for himself. Yes, the older he gets, the easier it will be for him to understand my explanations of it. But isn't it my job to judge when he is ready to do that, as a parent? Shouldn't I judge when my child is able to walk with me next to a road without stepping into it to watch a really cool puddle of water? And is the child stepping into that puddle his fault, or my fault?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I do think people - including children - should be held accountable for their actions. But at the same time, I firmly believe that at such a young age, it's up to the parent to create the frames in which these actions can be taken, and to lead by example. If Bobby pushes Jane of a monkey bar so Jane breaks her arm, you - as a parent - already missed something somewhere along the way. I'd say the concept of "sharing" for starters. And quite frankly, I honestly don't think no amount of physical pain is going to make Bobby grasp the concept of "sharing". Yes, it will make him grasp that pushing Jane of the monkey bar was a Bad ThingÃÆââââ¬Ã¾Ãââ, and as he gets older he'll probably be able to figure out the whole sharing thing as well. But is he being punished due to his shortcomings as a kid too young to tie his own shoelaces, or because you - as an adult parent who gets to vote in who rules the country - was unable to teach your child to wait for his turn before exposing him to a situation in which that knowledge was required of him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's what makes it cheap. You inflict physical pain on your child. It is temporary, it does not lead you to question your own actions or inactions, it focuses on providing the child with a negative experience to keep him from doing something. As you expressed it yourself, it's a "final solution", something to do when nothing else helps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. That parents do not use both methods of punishment. You assume spanking and taking away privileges are mutually exclusive, which by the given examples above, are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do this for two reasons; 1) The repeatedly stated ineffeciency of seinding people to their rooms in this thread. I do not advocate physical pain as a deterent but most of the people who did argued that sending them to their rooms, time-out's and whatnot, were ineffectual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) If they are used in combination, how do you know it's the physical pain creating having impact? How do you tell that if you were to remove physical pain from the equation, you wouldn't reach the same, similar or better results? Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, the only reference to a real psychological study in this entire thread comes from the third poster refering to a psychiatrist speaking against spanking, saying it to be ineffectual in the long-term?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. You also assume that children who are at a young age are able to grasp difficult moral and ethical concepts that people much older than them sometimes have trouble grasping. You might notice that spanking children only lasts so long. Why is that? Because spanking is used as a deterrent only when children are too young to be able to clearly reason through ethical dilemmas. When children grow older and more competent, then other forms of parenting develop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I'm not putting a four year old into a situation where he has to chose whether to eat meat for lunch, even though the meat arguably as a mother who arguably misses her child and the child is definitely - without argument - dead so that little Tommy could have a steak. Nor do I believe most spankings involve failure to comprehened the moral and ethical standards of capital punishment. It is the ethical dilemma's on the scale of "Don't wake your little brother" or "Don't walk into traffic". Both of which you should, as a parent, be quite able to provide your child with an at least sketchy idea of why they are to be avoided. Though the latter might provide some difficulty if you've parked your child infront of the wrong cartoons one time too many.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of that, there's the question of how you define "too young". When should a child be able to understand for himself that pushing Jane of a monkey bar is a really stupid thing to do? In my sincere opinion; Around the same time your child is old enough to be able to push someone off a monkey bar when you're not close enough to stop him. Someone in this thread said it's "individual" which I just call a nicer way of saying it's a parental judgement call that the parents of Bobby clearly failed to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With a quick spanking and a lecture, Bobby knows why he was punished. Sometimes physical means is the easiest way to get into the heads of children- and we have proof for what, centuries? Look at how children were back then, a century ago, and look at brats nowadays, after the hippies age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, [cabbage]. How on earth would physical pain magically manifest itself into an "aha, so THAT's why I was punished!". It's the lecture, not the pain. And if your kid spends so much energy evading his punishment and actually succeds; 1) You fail. Seriously. You are clearly able to think of all kinds of devious evasive tactics now, but once you become a parent these are suddenly forgotten and you become the second most gulliable person on the planet. ut some actual effort into it - and at this point, I'll once again refer back to what I said about cheap parenting. 2) If he wants to evade it so much he clearly isn't seeing why he deserves it in the first place, which should be your real concern. And quite frankly, if that's the case, I don't think he'll be able to learn something from physical pain either. But hey, once you've inflicted your physical pain on the child, he has been Punished and you need not concern yourself with whether he actually understood why, as opposed to if you send him to his room?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd continue, but I have bus to catch and unfortunetely, chances are I won't be seeing an internet able computer til next saturday. So if you guys could just keep this alive til then without adding ten pages... =P

[yomom1919]

I think its unanimous. Spanking is O.K. :twisted:

[darklord_99]

my perents used it on my and their perents on them its been going on forever and we all turned out great problally better then if we hadent got them so hell yea

[frizoid]

I think its unanimous. Spanking is O.K. :twisted:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unanimous means everyone agrees, as you can see some people don't :\ You didn't really think through your post did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a Early Years college student I agree that spanking is wrong, if I can educate a child without hitting them, which is illegal for me to do so, why can't parents?

[Satenza]

Did i just see Sarah say that you shouldn't hit a child? :o

[Lionheart_0]

A light spanking perhaps, but if your gonna take your anger out on a kid, thats just a no no.

[frizoid]

Did i just see Sarah say that you shouldn't hit a child? :o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude you aint a child so I can hit you all I want ;)

[yomom1919]

 

 

 

Unanimous means everyone agrees, as you can see some people don't :\ You didn't really think through your post did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you can also see that its a joke... You really didnt think through the response did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if its not a joke; 80%+ of people agree to it. How many people in this thread didnt? 4 or 5?

[Locke]

 

1. That parents do not use both methods of punishment. You assume spanking and taking away privileges are mutually exclusive, which by the given examples above, are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do this for two reasons; 1) The repeatedly stated ineffeciency of seinding people to their rooms in this thread. I do not advocate physical pain as a deterent but most of the people who did argued that sending them to their rooms, time-out's and whatnot, were ineffectual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's understandable given the specific purpose you had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) If they are used in combination, how do you know it's the physical pain creating having impact? How do you tell that if you were to remove physical pain from the equation, you wouldn't reach the same, similar or better results? Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, the only reference to a real psychological study in this entire thread comes from the third poster refering to a psychiatrist speaking against spanking, saying it to be ineffectual in the long-term?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an interesting personal story I have. I have a friend who is quite possibly, the only "perfect child" to ever exist. His mother is a family psychologist who for almost her entire life has strongly believed that it is unnecessary in parenting to spank, or even yell at a child. For a very long time, she was able to give personal testimony to the fact that she herself had raised a child with these limitations on her parenting and done a fabulous job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She had a second kid way down the road. Her first child is in high school and her second child is only 5 (or 6...I'm not exactly sure). Her second child is much different than her first. She has found herself yelling at him and has even had to spank him. Remember, this woman has her doctorate in family psychology and has been a strong advocate against spanking, and even just raising your voice when disciplining a child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is this. The burden of proof lies on you in this situation. I, along with many other people, were raised by getting spankings in very appropriate and controlled ways. If you are going to argue that this type of parenting method is ineffective, you need to prove that it is ineffective. Even this family psychologist, with all of her knowledge, needed some personal experience before she understood that not all kids are the same - and physical deterrence is in fact necessary at some points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally remember as a child being much more afraid of getting a spanking for breaking a rule than I would have been for losing privileges or going to my room. If I can personally testify that physical deterrence was more effective at a younger age then how can you say it is not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. You also assume that children who are at a young age are able to grasp difficult moral and ethical concepts that people much older than them sometimes have trouble grasping. You might notice that spanking children only lasts so long. Why is that? Because spanking is used as a deterrent only when children are too young to be able to clearly reason through ethical dilemmas. When children grow older and more competent, then other forms of parenting develop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I'm not putting a four year old into a situation where he has to chose whether to eat meat for lunch, even though the meat arguably as a mother who arguably misses her child and the child is definitely - without argument - dead so that little Tommy could have a steak. Nor do I believe most spankings involve failure to comprehened the moral and ethical standards of capital punishment. It is the ethical dilemma's on the scale of "Don't wake your little brother" or "Don't walk into traffic". Both of which you should, as a parent, be quite able to provide your child with an at least sketchy idea of why they are to be avoided. Though the latter might provide some difficulty if you've parked your child infront of the wrong cartoons one time too many.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting them to understand why they should be avoided does not mean children are not going to break rules. I point once again to my example of my friend the family psychologist. It is my firm belief that you yourself don't know the necessary effectiveness of spanking because you yourself have never been in a situation that would require it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of that, there's the question of how you define "too young". When should a child be able to understand for himself that pushing Jane of a monkey bar is a really stupid thing to do? In my sincere opinion; Around the same time your child is old enough to be able to push someone off a monkey bar when you're not close enough to stop him. Someone in this thread said it's "individual" which I just call a nicer way of saying it's a parental judgement call that the parents of Bobby clearly failed to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's like asking when the exact time someone should be potty trained. The intellectual maturity of children varies and a good parent who is delivering spankings in a controlled and effective manner should have enough insight in their child's intellectual maturity to know when it's time to quit spanking.

[lawrencekill]

 

Younger children should be taught better by their parents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't argue with that. I believe the standard of parenting these days is on the decline. Both parents working more often, more time in front of the idot box and overall less time spent with kids can all contribute to a lack of guidance and heightened rates of delinquancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know kind of ironic in a way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents are complaining about how T.V. is very violent, causing all these outlashes, and video games too. What they fail to see is what's in front of them. They rarely think, hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have stuck them in front of the T.V. every time I was doing something else? blah blah blah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than repeatedly stating the ineffeciency of sending kids to their rooms doesn't work, because there's computers, TV's, toys and gameboy's in there that the child can entertain him or herself with, why not, you know, take these things away from your child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pray tell, what idiot child would not adapt to this simple form of punishment?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very easy to hide small entertainment electronics. Once a child figures out how you operate, they can break you down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disciplining a child is about their ability to, for a lack of a better word, adapt, willingness to pay attention to you, and mental schemes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you lecture them, they tune you out. If you try and take away their stuff, they hide it. If you ground them, they'll most likely have a plan. If you're soft, they twist you around and see what they can get out of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that's a certain case...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I think a jolt of physical pain makes them aware and pay more attention to your lecture if they didn't listen the first few times.

[Baemnt13]

The thing is, Lawmakers argue, "Where do you draw the line in physical punishment." I, of course, am an avid supporter of a good smack on the face :P, but some parents take it overboard. Of course, parents should be able to control themselves, and know their limitations, not from a Judicial point of view, but as a caring, loving, NURTURING parent.

[heart_of_ink]

I was spanked as a child, and I turned out ok. It was only when I was bad, yet oftentimes my dad threatened to use his belt. As said before, people are too overly protective. Like, if a kid falls out of a tree, the parent will make an attempt to sue the tree and make people have a license to plant any more horticulture-related objects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I can see how it can turn into child abuse, if a tool, (i.e., paddle or belt w/ meat hooks) is used. If the parent has a drinking problem or anger issues, they could take it out on their child.

[katsuro0]

my dad would beat me mercilessly when i was a kid lol. because i'd always throw tantrums and stuff. and now i'm taking 4 AP classes, run a sub 4:30 mile, and am generally 1337. If there's no punishment, what makes you think the stupid kid is gonna learn? It's parents that don't do anything to their [developmentally delayed]ed child that end up producing materialistic, selfish failures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not only should spanking be kept legal, but savage beatings should be looked upon as a good thing lol.

[Doughnut]

my dad would beat me mercilessly when i was a kid lol. because i'd always throw tantrums and stuff. and now i'm taking 4 AP classes, run a sub 4:30 mile, and am generally 1337. If there's no punishment, what makes you think the stupid kid is gonna learn? It's parents that don't do anything to their [developmentally delayed] child that end up producing materialistic, selfish failures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not only should spanking be kept legal, but savage beatings should be looked upon as a good thing lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beating your child to a pulp is not something that should be looked upon, but three swats to the *** is find in my opinion.

[BlueTear]

My point is this. The burden of proof lies on you in this situation. I, along with many other people, were raised by getting spankings in very appropriate and controlled ways. If you are going to argue that this type of parenting method is ineffective, you need to prove that it is ineffective. Even this family psychologist, with all of her knowledge, needed some personal experience before she understood that not all kids are the same - and physical deterrence is in fact necessary at some points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I live in a country where corporal punishment as a means to raise a child has been banned since 1979. Since it's a democracy, I'd say it's fair to say that even before that ban, most children did not recieve corporal punishments. Every member of my generation constitutes the result of an upbringing that did not involve corporal punishment. Every friend I have close to my own age, every person I meet close to my own age. All brought up without corporal punishment. So speaking of living examples, I feel my own nation over the past quarter of a century makes a pretty handy one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, influenced in large part by living where I live, corporal punishment does not need to be proven ineffective. If it is to be justified, it needs to be proved to be effective. See, it's easy to argue that there's lots and lots of people who have suffered no apparent long-term emotional trauma, as several people in this thread have testified. The answer to the question "Was I hurt by it?" is "No". Wrong question to ask yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Was I helped by it?". Inflicting physical pain - which we outlaw for any other situation - on a child is not, in my opinion, morally acceptable because the child grows up and says "I wasn't hurt by it". If it's going to be morally acceptable, it needs to be (scientifically proven) that the child in question was helped by it. For crying out loud, hurting children is not okay just because the pain, twenty years down the line, did not leave any obvious emotional scars! Ergo, I don't believe the burden of proof lies on proving it to be ineffecient - unless someone intends to argue that punishing a thief by cutting of his right arm is the right thing to do until it's been proven to be "ineffecient" - but on the other way around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless, without spending overly large amounts of time thrawling the internet for sources, let's blatantly steal some links from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics, "Guidance for effective discipline". Fast forward to section on corporal punishment, and quoting some interesting parts (though to be honest, the whole section is an interesting read)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use. The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Spanking and threats of spanking lead to altered parent-child relationships, making discipline substantially more difficult when physical punishment is no longer an option, such as with adolescents.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Spanking is no more effective as a long-term strategy than other approaches,18 and reliance on spanking as a discipline approach makes other discipline strategies less effective to use.19 Time-out and positive reinforcement of other behaviors are more difficult to implement and take longer to become effective when spanking has previously been a primary method of discipline.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  A pattern of spanking may be sustained or increased. Because spanking may provide the parent some relief from anger, the likelihood that the parent will spank the child in the future is increased.20

 

 

 

Fancy that. I think we just found the main reason why people keep saying that being sent to their room didn't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally remember as a child being much more afraid of getting a spanking for breaking a rule than I would have been for losing privileges or going to my room. If I can personally testify that physical deterrence was more effective at a younger age then how can you say it is not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because even assuming the following is true; 1) Your parents only inflicted physical pain on you when it is, without a doubt, possible to say that you'd earned it because of your own actions, not because of your parents negligence or emotional state at the time (A lack of patience due to a bad day at work soliciting a punishment not on the scale of the behaviour for example) 2) You genuinely learned from the experience, and you recieved no emotional scarring that impaired your development in any way, and I don't just mean apparent issues 3) Other methods of disciplining would not have created similar, the same or better results 4) You do not suffer from a loyalty conflict clouding your assessment of yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your statistical significance remains negligable, compared to the scale of studies on the subject, as well first hand experience in the countries were there exists, and has existed for quite a while, bans on corporal punishment.

 

 

 

Getting them to understand why they should be avoided does not mean children are not going to break rules. I point once again to my example of my friend the family psychologist. It is my firm belief that you yourself don't know the necessary effectiveness of spanking because you yourself have never been in a situation that would require it.

I refer back to my statement on local legalities. Every child brought up within the past quarter of a century around here has never known it. Neighbouring nations, likewise.

 

 

 

That's like asking when the exact time someone should be potty trained. The intellectual maturity of children varies and a good parent who is delivering spankings in a controlled and effective manner should have enough insight in their child's intellectual maturity to know when it's time to quit spanking.

With that kind of insight, I'll continue to argue that situations where spankings are the only effective means just won't arise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pray tell, what idiot child would not adapt to this simple form of punishment?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very easy to hide small entertainment electronics. Once a child figures out how you operate, they can break you down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disciplining a child is about their ability to, for a lack of a better word, adapt, willingness to pay attention to you, and mental schemes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you lecture them, they tune you out. If you try and take away their stuff, they hide it. If you ground them, they'll most likely have a plan. If you're soft, they twist you around and see what they can get out of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I continue to be amazed by the thought that the same idiot child wouldn't come to understand that no matter how much it hurts, pain is temporary (glory is forever) and some actions may very well be worth a spanking. The child is clever enough to outsmart you - an adult - on several fronts at once, to decieve you thoroughly and to manipulate you permanently, yet in the face of some physical pain, he or she cringes in terror and becomes compliant. [cabbage]. Once again, if he or she controls you so thoroughly, no amount of physical pain is going to allow you to reassert control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And speaking of hiding small entertainment electronic's, if you're really paranoid about it, don't buy your child any electronic that cannot be equipped with a BIOS password, or keep it stored in a locked cabinet when not in use, or whatever. The "enemy" is a child of age, what, eight or below? If you can't outsmart that, then you truly are the second-most gulliable person on the planet.

[Ambassadar]

I live in a country where corporal punishment as a means to raise a child has been banned since 1979. Since it's a democracy, I'd say it's fair to say that even before that ban, most children did not recieve corporal punishments. Every member of my generation constitutes the result of an upbringing that did not involve corporal punishment. Every friend I have close to my own age, every person I meet close to my own age. All brought up without corporal punishment. So speaking of living examples, I feel my own nation over the past quarter of a century makes a pretty handy one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough... So let's look at what has happened in Sweden starting in the early 90's when those children that were born and didn't get spanked would be getting to the age of committing crimes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American property crime rates have been lower than those in Britain, Canada, and France since the early 1990s, and violent crime rates throughout the E.U., Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States. Even Sweden, once the epitome of cosmopolitan socialist prosperity, now has a crime victimization rate 20 percent higher than the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/266umtwb.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ 6 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas.

 

 

 

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1873

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the huge [bleep]e in crime in the last 20 years?

[BlueTear]

To reuse an old Mark Twain quote; "Lies, damned lies and statistics".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I'd like to point out that over the past decade, reported property related crimes such as theft have decreased by around 20%, while violence related reports have gone up - though the US still manages a higher homocide rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article you link to also has a second page, where it is noted that the most likely reason for these differences involve a more effective policing and justice system in the US than elsewhere. Living here, I happen to know our police force is generally considered understaffed, a situation that will deteriorate over the next few years due to retirements, and has steadily been going downhill for years the past few years as well (we had a population "boom" in the '40's and as their retiring we're finding ourselves in all kinds of interesting socio-economic issues)

 

 

 

SUPERIOR POLICING does little good without a commitment from the justice system to keep violent thugs off the streets. The United States has the longest prison sentences in the Western world. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its counterparts in other countries, a convicted armed robber can expect to serve about four and a half years behind bars in the United States, a little over two years in Great Britain, a bit less in Germany, and less than 18 months in France. The United States imprisons nearly 700 out of 100,000 citizens as compared to about 125 in the U.K. and Canada, 100 in Germany, and about 60 in most of Scandinavia. Some of these countries may actually have fewer thugs than the United States, but those left unpunished do enormous damage.

 

 

 

It strikes me that if we only lock up less than a tenth of as many the US does per 100 000 citizens and only manage a crime victimization rate 20% higher, we shouldn't really be complaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also means you can't actually find any coorelation between upbringing methods and crime rates, since any difference could easily - and in my opinion more accurately - be attributed to issues with law enforcement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the second source... The entire page is nothing but racists propaganda. Even if the numbers are true, it's worth noting that over the past years we've worked hard on making more women press charges as well as refining our laws to include stricter definitions of what constitutes a rape.

[katsuro0]

 

my dad would beat me mercilessly when i was a kid lol. because i'd always throw tantrums and stuff. and now i'm taking 4 AP classes, run a sub 4:30 mile, and am generally 1337. If there's no punishment, what makes you think the stupid kid is gonna learn? It's parents that don't do anything to their [developmentally delayed] child that end up producing materialistic, selfish failures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not only should spanking be kept legal, but savage beatings should be looked upon as a good thing lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beating your child to a pulp is not something that should be looked upon, but three swats to the *** is find in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yea the last part was a joke, but physical discipline ends up being very necessary, especially with boys. If a kid does something and observes that he only gets grounded or yelled at, he won't have as much fear doing it again. With boys, they basically do anything they want unless there is an "alpha" male around to control them. Boys fear and avoid something that will end up getting them hurt. So if there is no physical discipline, the kid will grow up, not only being able to fight back in case it's introduced late, but also with complete disregard for authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to a couple's house who have kids lacking physical discipline. All you see is complaining, crying, and screaming. For example, by aunt's 3 kids (another one which is only a few months old). They are spoiled beyond belief and they know they can get their way. All it takes is a bunch of tantrums and a lot of screaming, and the parents have no choice except to give in. i can't stand the little *bleeeeep*s lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, physical discipline enforces good behavior much quicker, but obviously it has to be kept to a reasonable level

[spikerkid]

It's wrong. No one should be spanked