Some Aribella said on the political sub-forum pissed me off and I don't think she was saying anything like this but any ways:

I personally have seen the result of "New age" parenting in which you should never hit your child, and the result are not pretty! my step mother is a mega new age freak and she has a 2 year girl and a 6 year old boy named Ryan. Organic foods only, no TV in the house, no promotion of violences in any form, no spanking every as followed under a strict varity of how to discipline your child psychology books. and the results are a slightly obese, prone to stare at a tv and being totally mezmorized apon seeing one, spoiled little brat that hit other child and his parents, goes into tamper tantrums when he does not get his way (at 6!), has no respect for anyone including his parent who he will hit when he mad, little narcissist.

Now I on the other hand was raised in a "lets figure out how to raised him as we go along" and was spank alot! I respect my parents (not because I was spanked by them) I was raised with a good level of strictness in what I should and should not do, I was warned, explained why it was wrong and if I continued would be punished by time outs, chores and spankings... I have even been belted before (for setting fire to window curtains)I also watched a lot of TV especially cable channels like Discovery, NGC, news (TLC, Science, techtv and History was not around back then). I played alot of videogames (most of which my mother was addicted to) such as Wolfinstien, Doom I-II, Quake I-III, Carmagedoon I-III ect. I my self am a non-violent, left-wing, agnostic, college student now.

Hmmmm…yes it depends on the child, and the parents. Coming from a family where my mother was violent to my farther (who she considered a suitable target) I’m quite glad she thought spanking was wrong, because had she started she’d have never stopped. But I understand there are those who think being spanked did them well.

I like the comparison between training dogs and children. Clicker (reward) training works wonders while spanking dogs tends not to work, especially when they get too big.
I guess it’s a case of realising that we need to train our children, that they are not naturally good little humans. So that if you know your child will throw a tantrum over not being able to see TV, create the situation when you feel strong enough to handle it and when you have the time. And you need to do it over and over again and find a suitable reward for good behaviour.

But I’m rather intrigued that you don’t question your need to set the curtains on fire. . .
:D

ut I’m rather intrigued that you don’t question your need to set the curtains on fire. . .

I was a kid and I can't remember how it happened really...

Sure positive reinforcement works well but on test with rats negative reinforcement taught them 7 times faster. I was raised under: if you do something wrong they will warn you not to do it again or if it was bad enough they would put me in time out or so forth (like the fire thing was a one time incident) if I repeat I would be punished or punished harsher so forth, they did not stop before physical punishment because they did not feel that was a limit, my stepmother on the other hand can not spank Ryan, she tells warns him that it wrong and why he should not do it but when he repeats she try to put him in time out and he just walks away or has a tantrum, breaks stuff in rage, so forth, he does not respect his mother because she has no authority, there is nothing she can do to stop him, I have seen her hit him though out of pure rage, once Ryan punched his baby sister and his mother just slap him across the face right on the spot, not a good tactic I think, but her fuse was burnt out from all the other stuff Ryan had done wrong the whole day, and she just erupted on him like that. My step-mother does positive reinforcement but there is no way to do that when he is bad. It requires long term goals, like she won’t get him a new toy unless he is good, but Ryan does not think ahead yet, and it has only the effect of cause a tantrum and more bad things when he is told he will not get something because he was bad.

I am not saying non-spanking does not work but I think it depends on the child, some children have a natural respect for their parents authority, some like Ryan or I do not. So one should parent on the qualities of the child rather then on some guild lines in a book.

No spanking does not induce respect directly, it teaches the child that there is some thing they just can’t do without very painful consequences, as they get older they listen more and understand the reason why they should not do that, they hear there parents complain or complement them and come to trust their parents as guide and authority: do as s/he says because s/he is my parent and is right and knows what best for me to do.

I mostly agree with you, but I’m not sure about; some children have a natural respect for their parent’s authority. I think it’s more a case of how parents interact with very young children. In the cases where the children don’t respect their parents I think they have been spoilt as young babies and toddlers. As they grow up the parents try to remove the huge attention and toys and the children protest.

I would have thought that a six year old should be able to think ahead, maybe not for things like toys, but trips to the zoo, which he has memories of might work better. And really that’s not the type of reward that I was thinking of, more the emotional reward of being ‘a good boy’ reinforced internal satisfaction. I watched a documentary on child psychology once where there were two sisters, one of which always needed the parent’s attention and help to do tasks. Watching the way they interacted you could clearly see that the parents were reinforcing the behavior as much as the child. After being told to ignore the child but praise her when she did it on her own, the child learnt to get enjoyment from doing her own things.
So I guess the question might be how is your step-mom reinforcing Ryan’s behavior?

I don’t think the negative reward system of rats should be used on humans, dogs or horses, because these creatures tend to grow up larger than the controlling human, and if it fails there is quite a good chance that you could get punched by your 6 foot 16 year old son…(but maybe this is the same likelihood of non-negative reward systems (good empirical research topic perhaps)

I really should stop viewing children and animals as similar objects
:rolleyes:

Define spoiling? Many people don’t seem to know what spoiling is in fact very dangerously so!

My step mother followed all the positive reinforcement scheme the books told her, She even specified to me that you complement them when they do something good or on there own or helpful.
and it failed miserable.

perhaps some children enjoy being complemented more then others even find it hurtful when it is no supplied.

humans are animal just very smart talking ones with opposable thumbs. Therefore an animal model can provide rough details on how the human system works, test using electro-shock on humans (adults, I don’t remember of hearing of any studies on unconsenting, unpayed children) match the same as animals… hum, perhaps if we put elector-shock collars on all are children :D

what are your opinions on media violence?

I've got two kids, a two (almost 3-year old and an almost 1-year old) and time-outs seem to be the most effective for my eldest daughter. A year ago, I used to "spank ocassionally but as a last straw" when she did something wrong, but even though I used physical punishment as a last measure, that minimal action caused her to act out. (And I'm not saying that this is true for all kids, nor giving advice NOT to spank, just telling this story of a personal situation.) So, I decided to implement the time-out strategy and we have no problems with her behavior. In fact, merely the mention of a 'time-out,' changes her actions immediately. Every parent, though, has different strategies and sometimes it's good to experiement to find what works.

i can't imagine what a kid could do that is so bad they deserve a spanking. they're just doing what they're supposed to do, being kids. we have a strict no hitting kids policy in my family. nobody ever hit anybody else. when i worked in retail in high school i would see mothers yelling at their kids in the store going "DON'T ::SMACK:: HIT ::SMACK:: YOUR ::SMACK:: BROTHER!!!" hrmmm wonder where he gets it. my brother has the two loveliest, well behaved kids ever because he reasons with them. i understand not everyone has genius kids who can understand logic:rolleyes: but goddamn it works. they're smart, can make good decisions on their own and are just so nice. they know why they have to do what he says, not just because he says it. the funny part is that every kid in my family is hyperactive. it takes an infinite amount of patience to deal with hyperactive kids but it can be done without losing it. my mom did it, her mother did it, her sisters did it, my brother is doing it and i look forward to doing it too. there's no such thing as a bad kid, only bad parents. the parents are the ones that need a spanking.

Ryan was never hit (tell recently) and he hits everyone! I remember when he was 3 he was at a park and throw a pebble at another little kid, hit him on the head, the kid cryed, Ryan laughed… I think by the time Ryan is in his teen I should fear for my life, "can't visit dad Ryan might kill me"!

My sister Thias (my mothers and step fathers kid) is also 6 and has never I mean NEVER been spanked or hit in any way. She is punished with time-outs and the threat of a spanking but see rarely does wrong and when she does so she doesn't repeat it after one of the above is administered. Now I don't understand this in that me and my brother Nathan (also my mother and step-fathers kid) were spanked, perhaps girl-ness makes her more obedient and to lovable to hit? I pray this is the case for my other sister (my step-mother and fathers kid)!

lol. ryan sounds just like me when i was little. exept i used to kill our pets. our family lost a couple puppies, a cat, a couple bird, and a gold fish to my wicked 'tendencies'.
she would never hit. just try to reson.
i lit the yard on fire. "that was bad. what if the house burnd down? where would we live?"
for all i cared we could live in a dumpster. i was a demon child.
but i grew out of it. it was just an evil faze. just make sure you dont let him near chlorene or gasoline.
if you lucky he wont grow up to be a killer or somthing.
tell her to put him in ballet or somthing. my mom tried that. i got in trouble for hurting the girls. lol.
get him doing somthing constructive. or just burry him in the backyard.
some kids just dont care about the toys or time outs. you just gotta swat em. i was also one of those kids who when i was punished ide just get back at her later by puting salt in her drink or pins in her chair. lol. i had a fun childhood...

btw. my mom tried a dog colar on me around my wrist. still have scares. dont u darte try it. that thing hurt like hell and just made me madder.

So there is hope then, thank god! Here here don't change a thing I'm going to send this link to my father.

Using violence against children or anybody else is always wrong. You will hurt the child both physically and emotionally and also teach the child that violence is a good way of solving problems, which it isn't, in case you had any doubt.

You might be interested in the book They F*** You Up: How to Survive Family Life by Oliver James. What I’ve read of it is quite funny –in a good way.

As for media violence, they showed Total Recall yesterday and I’ve decided that I have nothing against TV and Cinema violence if its realistic (the injures actually seeming to hurt). There is a feeling that children should not come into contact with danger and pain, but in doing so are we failing to teach them how to deal with them?

I know that many people on this forum like the idea of everything being genetically determined and set by the time the child is born. However I think brain chemistry and biochemistry is quite dynamic in this regard. Studies such as http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goleman/ indicate that the environment of the early upbringing is important (not only with violence, but also with developing empathy).

What will happen if we wrap our children up in cotton wool letting them get their emotional rush out of films and games, which currently have no moral and empathic value?

Btw, I think that if a child kills something I think it is very important that they be taught to understand what pain is. They may grow out of it, but there is only a limited number we can send into the army if they don’t.

I looooove the 'When all else fails' option!

By then the parent, or whoever, is so pissed they're
incapable of administering an appropriate punishment
and abuse is often the result.

:m: :cool: :m:

cthulhus slave, you sound like me when I was a kid. I didn't kill animals though. :)

Anyways, I don't see why it would be necessary. None of the children in my extended family are physically disciplined, and they're decently well behaved. Mama was too afraid of me to beat me (well, she was once I grew old enough to hurt the bitch back - *grins*) and I haven't killed anyone yet.

Why anyone would want well behaved children is beyond me.

weebee:

I like the comparison between training dogs and children. Clicker (reward) training works wonders while spanking dogs tends not to work, especially when they get too big.

Actually, a good smack under the chin works on Shephards.

Bebelina:

Using violence against children or anybody else is always wrong. You will hurt the child both physically and emotionally and also teach the child that violence is a good way of solving problems, which it isn't, in case you had any doubt.

Actually, violence is a very effective solution to many problems. But not towards children.

'violence is a very effective solution to many problems.'

I can't think of one. Killing, maybe because it removes the 'problem' but violence as a solution?:confused:

Xev, can you give an example?

WW2, off the top of my head. Force met by superiour force can solve problems.

I consider the sublimation of our violent instincts to be a bad thing. It breeds weakness, hypocrisy and a frustrated desire for power.

Not that I believe we should beat the shit out of each other for the most trivial things, but rather that we should aknowledge our aggression rather than hide it.

Xev,


I consider the sublimation of our violent instincts to be a bad thing. It breeds weakness, hypocrisy and a frustrated desire for power.
Weakness? How? The sublimation of violent instincts does not imply you are completely defenseless. In my perspective it rathers implies that you first explore other options, before exploding into a fight. Hypocrisy? Probably you are right there. Desire for power? Well, isn't this present in all of us regardless if we try to subdue violent uprisings in ourselves?


Not that I believe we should beat the shit out of each other for the most trivial things, but rather that we should aknowledge our aggression rather than hide it.
I'm not sure how to acknowledge aggression without beating someone to the ground. How is it done?

Yes, we should acknowledge our aggression, but learn to use it in a non hurtful way. Because regardless of wether superior force can conquer a weaker force through violence, it still causes great suffering, and sets a bad example for future ways of solving similar problems.
Using war upon humanity is like beating a child.
It gets silent for the moment but inside grows a huge desire for revenge.
And the circle will never stop...
But we can talk about this hypothetically how much we want, violence will still be there for a long long time to come, humanity is a slow learner.
I think humanity would have to evolve into drastically different beings before people can stop their aggression from becoming violence.
Perhaps we can aknowledge violence as a way of solving problems in the past, but also see that it lead us to a very unfriendly place, and if we want that to change we must also change our behaviour.

"I'm not sure how to acknowledge aggression without beating someone to the ground. How is it done?"

You can easily transform the feeling if you are made aware of it to begin with. When you feel anger, say to yourself " I know feel angry."
And just be angry, beat the sofa, work out, running works fine, take a log and beat the dirt.
Or if you are of the more sophisticated kind, you can sit down and meditate and transform the feeling into creativity and write a book, paint art...build a house, start a movement.
Many books have been written about anger management, read one. :)
Make the adrenalin work for you, not against you.

Btw, if children act violently for no apparent reason they might suffer from a psychological disorder and the parents should definitely take the child to a psychologist.
It has been discovered that a large percentage of murderers and physical abusers have some form of autism.

the mouse makes sense

It depends for me. I would only really use it as a last resort, and I would never use it on a girl! It's not appropriate for a girl at all, though I can't see many girls' behaviour warranting it anyway. :)

It would depend on how serious the situation was, and I would try everything else first.

Bebelina,


And just be angry, beat the sofa, work out, running works fine, take a log and beat the dirt.
Not for me, in an aggressive and angry mode i'm not operating well anymore and become rather clumsy. Would hurt my hand hitting the sofa, i'd get myself under a car while running, i'd break my own arm with a log. Last time i tried to acknowledge aggression, the handle of a teapot ended up in my hand. Best thing for me is just to let it slide while focusing on something completely else. Usually grabbing a book from Terry Pratchet helps in this way. Can't be busy hurting myself, others and/or causing collateral damage if i'm laughing my head off.


Or if you are of the more sophisticated kind, you can sit down and meditate and transform the feeling into creativity and write a book, paint art...build a house, start a movement.
Not really my thing. Meditating and leaving myself alone with my own thoughts, particulary when angry, makes me barking mad.

Back to the topic of spanking children:

Never. Besides, there are much better ways of correcting undesired behaviour. Inducing guilt or shame for a crime done by a child would probably last longer than the shock and short term pain of a parental smack.

Obviously many of you did not read my examples showing that alternative to spanking are not full proof and can be totally ineffective when used on the right (demonic) child.

I had so many beltings as child it just isn't funny, but I'm certainly not traumatised by it. I usually had it coming, I could imagine how bad it would have been if my parents found out I was the one who blew up the neighbours letterbox.:D

Godly Tips on How to Punish and Beat Your Christian Child (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0303/spanking.html):eek:

Wellcookedfetus:

Obviously many of you did not read my examples showing that alternative to spanking are not full proof and can be totally ineffective when used on the right (demonic) child.

And then he could *yawn* grow up into a *yawn* productive *yawn* adult who lives a *yawn* meaningful and healthy life. I should *yawn* write something in here about not *yawn* living your life as a mindless sheep, but *yawn* everyone has heard it before. Rip the *yawn* system.

I think if I had a child I'd sell him or her off as a Nike slave. But that wouldn't really cover copay on the delivery and prenatal care, so maybe smacking them around with a two by four would be best. Then you could brainwash them so that they'd take care of you when you become a pathetic vegetable in a nursing home.

I was thinking a normal adult life for Ryan will involve a chain saw, hockey mask and human brains served by severed head bowls. Basically a real life “Red Dragon” or “Jason” but since we have already seen those in the movies, ya that’s boring. :p

Better yet Xev, why not take a baby or several and lock them in a white room with chain them to a toilet and give them as little human contact as possible then at the right age sell them to highest biding psychologist so they can conduct a “Genie 2” experiment. Come on you can get rich, though the UN will want your head on a platter. :p

WellCookedFetus:

I was thinking a normal adult life for Ryan will involve a chain saw, hockey mask and human brains served by severed head bowls. Basically a real life “Red Dragon” or “Jason” but since we have already seen those in the movies, ya that’s boring. :P

We need more imaginitive serial killers, really.


Better yet Xev, why not take a baby or several and lock them in a white room with chain them to a toilet and give them as little human contact as possible then at the right age sell them to highest biding psychologist so they can conduct a “Genie 2” experiment. Come on you can get rich, though the UN will want your head on a platter. "P

That'd be perfect. Especially if you had a set of identical twins - raise one in a hellhole, raise the other by a loving family.

Can you think of how much money you'd make!

Oh by the way Xev I bet you think your funny right, oh ya read kazakhan limk up there! http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/rofl.gif

kazakhan's link: I can't beleive that! Funny, but only to a point.

Mucker brings in an interesting point; punishment methods seems to be gender specific. But is it true that girls and boys are different, and should be punished differently for the same acts? Or is it just that girls and boys act like we expect them to, and we’ve taken a dislike to how we expect boys to behave?

There was another thread which highlighted the US statistics for gun shootings, and I’m thinking that the US might want to consider how it raises its children. Which means that it is the publics interest to know how children are reared. . .?

btw I’m not sure that I agree that WWII is a good example of violence solving problems. I am unsure of what about WWII was violent (as apposed to WWI which I would have thought was more violent at a micro level). To be sure the death squads are an example of violent killing, but I don’t anyone is arguing that these people ‘solved’ a problem. Terrorism might be a suitable example of violence solving problems. A couple of instances spring to mind, such as the Malaysian independence movement. The problem would be that Malaysia was governed by the British, and it was ‘solved’ by terrorist acts. Without a doubt they were an influence in bring independence, but the political movement was equally, if not more so of an influence. I would say that violence is a technique, and the solution is given by the people who use the technique, not the technique its self. I.e. violence has no inherent solving properties.

Mucker brings in an interesting point I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!! WHO ASKED YOUR OPINION ANYWAY???

No one did. I give it totally free. Dear, does that annoy you?

YOU'RE FUCKING THICK

Please tell me what’s made you form that view?

It seems to me this form of socialising is Mucker's chance to be a little bit wild, the poor little piddle.

Wow, hey now guys I’m not going to have a wild orgy under one of my threads, please stick to the issue. And if your post get deleted remember: it was not me! http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/saint.gif

Fetus, has Ryan been seing a psychologist? If not, he probably should.

Mouse, if reading a book works best for you, then read, it's almost like meditation anyway. :)

Yes Ryan has been to a psychologist (or so I have been told) and he is perfectly normal for his age :bugeye: this being one of my step-mother psychologist and my step mother hates my opinion on how to raise Ryan, my father has to defend her because he has gone through 3 marriages and now does anything is wife ask on command, out of fear.

Spanking is better then tallking the kid down for braking some difficult- to-explain rule. Talking the kid down lowers his/her selfesteem. They have to be learned that some things must not be done: if you can simply explain the rule that the kid fully understands it then it is preferable but (eg. he sees disabled kid and laugths brutally. If I explain that the kid can be hurt due his his behaviour, he says: but paps he looks so funny (it is in a way true) so I say if you do not stop I will spank you (and sometimes I do) ) Often when I talked to him to improve his behaviour he looked depressed and unsure afterwards...

WellCookedFetus,

Obviously many of you did not read my examples showing that alternative to spanking are not full proof and can be totally ineffective when used on the right (demonic) child.
True, and after reviewing them i stand corrected.

The way you reason is very depressiong. Don't you realize that by spanking your child you are raising a potential Hitler?

LOL Hitler LOL! and by not spanking your child you can raise the anti-Christ!

Originally posted by Xev

Why anyone would want well behaved children is beyond me.


haha agreed. i want children who act like kids.
my momma always tells people "maybe they don't sit quietly with their hands folded but at least my kids are not dull"

Don't you realize that by spanking your child you are raising a potential Hitler?
Are you serious? How many children do you have? How old are they? If it were really truee wouldn't the world have been over run with "hitlers" by now?

Look around, isn't it?

Look around, isn't it?
It would be my guess the people you speak of were never spanked. Hence the problem. If it wasn't for spanking I would never have learnt to respect another person's property or well being.

The columbine kids were never spanked! :eek:

I think its ok to spank your kid.

Look this kid Ryan probably hasnt been punished and felt what it is liked to be hit(till recently). He probably dosent know what it feels like to have a rock thrown at his head and have somebody laugh at you.

Humans by nature are violent. I think Ryan needs to understand what it is like to have another person willingly inflict pain upon him. Hes a bully and the best way to beat a bully is to well be the bigger one. Either do it now or its going to happen sometime it just might not be from a loved one.

Last time I was there (last charismas) I think my step mother was backing down and was resorting to what ever was possible in disciplining Ryan, I'll think she is learning :) I'll visit them again later this summer see how things are going. I personally believe that some children never needed to be spanked: I have meet people that claim that they were never spanked... all were women though. That not to say women in general can be raised without spanking: I remember the cousin of my first serious girlfriend she was never spank and oh man what a monster!

Hitler was seriously abused by his parents.
Violence feed violence.
I hope you are not serious about spanking your children.
If you have the ability to think of what damage it may cause the childs selfimage, that will be there for the rest of its life, you will stop yourself.

Bebelina,

You sound just like my step-mother :D please explain Ryan's violent tendencies then, also explain why I don't have any?

The Columbine kids were never spanked (or so there parents claim) what went wrong there?

Hitler was seriously abused by his parents.
OK so spanking a child will lead them to attempt conquering the world? If this is the only example you have then could it get any lamer?

If you have the ability to think of what damage it may cause the childs selfimage, that will be there for the rest of its life, you will stop yourself.
How about being whipped with a fabric covered electrical cable? I've seen others cop much worse & of course, we're trying to take over the world:rolleyes:

I've known plenty of people who were spanked as children, me myself being one of them; somehow, all of such kind are quite disciplined, not-threatening adults with variety of values and great perspectives, and they're all loving children.

Hitler was talented in speech; this enabled him to unite the nation and direct it to one goal. If such is the result of spanking, SPANK AWAY! Why is it a bad thing if your child is able to do great thing?

(note: I'm not a fan of Hitler's policies; I simply recognize that the man had some good skills that were directed toward destruction.)

Folks, I gotta tell ya, I strongly disagree with sparing the rod.

It is most effective when the child is young. All children will push the boundries to find if those boundries remain in place. It is how they measure their world. If the boundries remain then their world is what they know and all is well. When those boundries don't remain then they must explore just how far they can go. No respect for authority means trouble down the line.

Now a days, parents are responcible for what their children do. Financially responcible. So if your underage child steals a car and runs over someone elses property, that makes you the parent responcible. At this point it is a little late to give him a good wallop on the butt to say this is wrong. He has no respect for authority. So what happens? You pay, he winds up in reform school where he learns if he was smarter he could have gotten away with it. Next time he tries to be "smarter" and that is no winning battle.

He then has no respect for authority and it is soon time for the jail.

Read the papers some time. Just how much is good in the local news of what is happening around your block? No a lot, I would venture to say.

Everyone wants to blame the drug situtation for all the violence. Oh and the video games. News flash!!! It isn't the games. It isn't violence in the movies and it isn't because they read some book that someone else wanted banned from the school library. It is because they never learned respect at a young age when it could have done some good. Learning it later in life is the hard way.

I got my tail torn up more times than I care to talk about. I read all those violent comic books. (That's how I learned to read!) But I have never had the urge to go knock off some bank, steal some car, or just plain go out and shoot someone because I was having a bad day. (Nor do I have the urge to go visit jail for something I didn't do smart enough.)

I think we have lost some serious family values with the do gooders involved. No corporal punishment in schools has lead to things like school shootings and kids toting weapons because they are afraid for their safety from kids that never learned the meaning of the word "NO!".

Who are the Columbine kids??


All children will push the boundries to find if those boundries remain in place. I think this is very true, and I also think they will be disappointed if there isn't one! It's almost as if there are so many opportunities available to them (if there are no boundaries), that is is daunting, and probably scary. I think children should be given direction (like when they first learn to ride a bike with a parent to hold them steady) but I don't think spanking should ever really be neccessary.


Hitler was seriously abused by his parents. I think this is a bit extreme Bebelina. I think Hitler probably was spanked, by his Dad (his father was apparently quite strict) but I have never seen or heard of any evidence for this. Do you have any evidence for what you claim??

Fetus, I can't explain why you don't have the same tendencies as Ryan, I don't know you well enough, but it would be a bit drastic to draw the conclusion that wether you were spanked or not would be the sole difference.
I think you should insist that your stepmother takes Ryan to a BETTER psychologist, that would try to investigate a little more in his behaviour, because it doesn't sound normal to me. A child that acts out that violently is not happy, something is definitely bothering him or he might have a psychological disorder since birth.
The Columbine kids had a lot of history in common with others of the same generation, so saying that just because they weren't spanked they went crazy is like saying that because they didn't listen to classical music they wen't crazy. There's simply no logic in that.
Such extreme behaviour always has much more to it than a cliché.

Kazakhan, I feel sorry for you if that is what you have experienced yourself.
If you can't remember the terror of being hit as a child and then that is proof itself of the long going damage it has done.
Nobody deserves to be treated like that, especially not a child.

Of course I didn't mean that every spanked child should turn out to be a Hitler clone, please read between the lines a little bit more than that. I was of course refering to his violent and generally ruthless and cruel behaviour.

And his intelligence and skills had absolutely nothing to do with wether he was abused or not, you realize that, don't you Whitewolf?

Mucker, I don't carry along proof regarding Hitlers uprbringing in my backpocket, but watch the History channel, read some litterature about him and I'm sure you will come to that chapter. I can recall hearing and reading about it on several occasions, but I don't catagolize all my experiences for future demand of evidence. :)

I agree that children need boundaries, but there are other ways of providing such guidance than through abuse.

The violence in this world is not a result of lack of spanking, it a result of lack of love. Lack of empathy towards eachother, and that is what this society as such has been based on, that is what has lead us to this hostile world.
If you want it to change, if you want humanity to become more kind, then you have to start with yourself and how you treat your children, ser a good example. Because saying "heck, I was spanked and I turned out ok.." , and then go and spank your child, is evidence that you haven't learned a thing. Just following destructive patterns induced in your childhood.

Children mimic adults, so if you spank your child as punishment for it throwing a stone at another child, you are giving it double messages.
You are with your mouth saying "it's wrong to hurt other people" , and with your actions saying the opposite.

I think you should insist that your stepmother takes Ryan to a BETTER psychologist, that would try to investigate a little

I like this its fool proof: the psychologist say “don’t spank them!” and tell them to pump their self esteems up until they are narcissistic, then most of all recommend to come often to a local psychologist or just them for child psychiatric help and guidance: It genius! You set them up and knock them down!


The Columbine kids had a lot of history in common with others of the same generation, so saying that just because they weren't spanked they went crazy is like saying that because they didn't listen to classical music they wen't crazy. There's simply no logic in that. Such extreme behavior always has much more to it than a cliché.

I mentioned the Columbine kids because saying Hitler was evil or violent because he was spanked is the same faulty logic. The thing is that goths in Germany and Japan don’t go around killing people, so I don’t see how it’s the cliché fault.

Spanking is not abuse, it not hitting your child with no warning or burning him with cigarettes. I have seen the giving your child love and lots of it and it does not do squat when it comes to disciple. Ryan learned to hit all on his own, he did not learn it from being hit.

disciplining your kids, that's what i always hear on this topic. but goddammit someone tell me what a child could possibly do that is so bad that they deserve to be hit!! maybe if they were trying to kill somebody...

If a child does something wrong you tell s/he not to do it, if they repeat, you put them in timeout or make them do something, if they continue disobeying you what other option do you have left? Spanking is not such a horrible thing, I’m not traumatized from it I don't cower in fear of my parents, I love my parent greatly, and when I think about it I had it coming.

what act of disobedience is so bad it warrents violence?

just give me one example

I did! and also spankings are not "violence".

let me rephrase that:

what act of disobedience is so bad it warrents violence?

and yes it is violence. hitting is hitting, regardless if it's on the behind or anywhere else.

Lets see
- Hitting another person
- Damaging property
- Repeated disobedience

I think that covers it, and what your opinion of violence is as yours and not definitive. I don’t see spanking a child under control circumstances as violence, you do, your problem.

"Hitting another person"

but it's ok when you do it? mixed signals, very confusing for young children. hypocrisy=bad parenting

"Damaging property"

oh please, children do that. it's in their job description. adults damage more property than kids do anyway and in much more destructive ways. spank them.

"Repeated disobedience"

nothing more than bad parenting. parents hit when they don't know how to parent so they take it out on the kid. if they did their job right, the spanking would never come up. imo, most people suck at being parents and should have been sterilized in the first place.


"I don’t see spanking a child under control circumstances as violence"

but they are not permitted to hit you back. they are unarmed, so to speak, and cannot defend themselves. it is an unfair fight. that is called abuse.

Mammals are the best parents in the world, but by god human beings are by far the worst.
There wouldn't be anything wrong with spanking if the parent knew when to do it but they never do. They do it when THEY are angry which is pointless and harmful.
There has to be a reason for everything you do while parenting.
I think the secret to perfect parenting is to let children hurt themselves and don't reward them with pity when they do.
I've seen animal parents like bears and honey badgers do this time and time again on TV so I know its what works. Animals can't afford to screw up like we can.
A baby honey badger stumbled into an ants nest and was getting bitten by ants, its mother watched without interfering for about a minute so the lesson was learned then she ran over, picked it up by the scruff of the neck, took it away from the ants and roughly dropped it on the ground to really make sure the message was ingrained.
Now what would a human mother do? First of all she wouldn't be watching her child she would be talking to her friends, her son would come over crying, he would tug on her sleave and say "an ant bit me waaa waaa" and she would say "awww let me see! awww oh my god awww!!! etc etc"
After that he'll probably want to be bitten again.
Or These days the mother might be watching, she might be watching so hard that the child has no chance to meet an ants nest ever, or anything else for that matter. What kind of human being will he grow up as if he hasn't experienced anything as a child?
I say let them go, let them run wild and free but watch them, watch them walk into an ants nest, watch them burn their finger on something, watch them walk into a telephone pole be ready to interfere if it starts to get out of hand but don't stop them from doing those things.
You'll end up with a pretty lousy excuse for a living organism if you do.

SwedishFish

Yes it is ok when you spank your child on the butt it is not normal interpreted as the same thing as being punch in the face in angry.

Adults are punished for damaging property except thats far more violent! Imprisonment and being @$$-fukced for several years its what we are trying to prevent in our children, I would be best to prevent it then.

As for disobedience tell my step-mother she’s a bad mother and that her child should be a angel if she did it "right" like all the books and psychologist tell her to do… as if she has not been following there instructions to the "T"!

Spanking under federal law is not seen a abuse and parents can not be charge for such. There for it is not abuse :p

ok, put her on the computer. i'll tell her she's a bad mother.

good parenting lies in instinct. if you ain't got the instict, don't be spawning offspring.

i fail to see the difference between the face and the behind. my mom flicked me on the side of the mouth when she didn't like what came out of it. it enraged me and made me want to hit her back, not the intended effect. now that i'm physically able to, i totally would if she ever laid a finger on me.

yes, because the federal law says so, it must be true. :rolleyes: let's take a look at the top and see how his kids turned out, shall we? oh right they're out of control underaged alcoholics.

Sure abuse is the view of person, but to punish for it requires the view of the public. I have never hit my mother and never wanted to out of fear of the repercussions, Ryan hits his parents because there is nothing they can do back to him that he finds negative enough.


yes, because the federal law says so, it must be true. let's take a look at the top and see how his kids turned out, shall we? oh right they're out of control underaged alcoholics.

Who are you talking about? Bush and his spoiled brats? What that have to do with spanking? Those kids are just spoil which is something else entirely. Mainly a rich father that gave them everything they wanted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3015226.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3017106.stm

Mix a little bit of imagination with some intelegence…

I think that physical punishment is needed sometimes as sending them to sit on a ‘naughty step’ or standing in the corner.

So how far is sending children to prison an abuse? But that’s off topic.
;)

I'm firmly in the spanking is okay as a last resort category. When you have attempted reasoning with your child, and thay haven't listened. When you've given them a time-out or other non-violent forms of disipline and it hasn't had any effect. You need to reinforce that there are boundries on how they can behave just as there are foe adults. Spanking should be distinct from abuse in that parents should not be angry and out-of-control when disiplining their children.
If my children grow up to be responsible adults, people who make decisions and have morals that I can be proud of. That is more important to me than whether they like me as an individual.Parents exist to raise responsible, law-abiding, productive adults. Not to create their new best friends.

"Parents exist to raise responsible, law-abiding, productive adults. Not to create their new best friends. "


What a horrible outlook on life....
I hope my kid will be my best friend and have a revolutionary spirit and not just become another sheep.

Bebelina,

I don't see my self as a sheep, I am going to college pursuing my interested and wanting to make something important and beneficial to humanity with my life, if that makes me a sheep so be it... at lest I not a serial killer which is more fitting to what your describing.

Isn't the goal to have both? A responsible child that is also your best friend??? I mean, if you have one and not the other I wouldn't consider you a successful parent.

So the expression "revolutionaty spirit" immediately gave you associations to serial killers? Hmmm....

Actually “sheep” gave me the idea, if a sheep is a productive member of society then a guess a criminal is not a sheep. Rising a best friend is fine, but they still have to be taught how to live in societies and obey laws.

I hope my kid will be my best friend and have a revolutionary spirit and not just become another sheep.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsible as in: they are willing to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Law-abiding as in: If they want to make a change in the world they do it by creating a "revolution" that is within the laws of their country. (Instead of forcing people to agree with their views at gunpoint or whatever.)
Productive as in: Being happy and successful at what they choose to do in life.

The object of parenting becomes skewed when parents want their children to be their friends at the expense of teaching them the boundries of the world we live in.

terrible - does not teach love

We are not trying to teach love here, love you give to a child unconditionaly, teaching them is something else entirely.

<i>FEAR</i> is a very common tool used for the purpose changing the behavior of people. Pretty fricken barbaric, really...more so when you apply it to children. :mad:

Spare the rod spoil the child.

that’s not true spoiling and spanking at two different things unrelated to each other.

on the start page today it says:

SPARE THE ROD
There's no reason to spank
*Nine ways to discipline kids

so i immediately thought of this thread. if anyone's curious about the nine ways, here they are:

1. Nurture her self-esteem
2. Catch your child being good
3. Set limits and be consistent
4. Make time for your kids
5. Be a good role model
6. Communicate clearly
7. Be flexible
8. Show unconditional love
9. Parent with confidence

edit: oh there's a link too http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/nine_steps.html

1.Nurture her self-esteem, thus making her into a narcissist. Too little self-esteem leads to depression and suicide, to much leads to egomania, narcissism and murders rampages.
2.Catch your child being good a must… this is effective on older children that can predict, forsee and plan that bad behavior now means no goody for latter
3. Set limits and be consistent, a must… but this being effective if your child actually listen to you or if the limit is on something that requires you to do. When your child exceeds a limit what do you do?
4. Make time for your kids, a must and has no relevance to spanking a child or not.
5. Be a good role model, a must and has no relevance to spanking a child or not.
6. Communicate clearly, a must and has no relevance to spanking a child or not.
7. Be flexible, a must and has no relevance to spanking a child or not.
8. Show unconditional love, since disciplining a child is still love on your part (since your willing to do it on your part) this is never broken.
9. Parent with confidence, a must and has no relevance to spanking a child or not

OK, isn't it pretty conclusive that beating your kids turns them into assholes in the future? A light spanking might not be so bad, but there was a study that showed many parents don't realize how much force they are using.

Negative reinforcement IS required (unless technically it means you positively enforce negative things - but you know what I mean), however. E.g. my young cousin is the sort to throw tantrums to get his way. My aunt does nothing but try to reason with him (very briefly, and besides he's under 6). She always gives in. They've even changed schedules around somewhat to accomodate this little jerk. She enforces positively, so he knows how to do positive things, but he doesn't know not to do negative things. Interestingly, he isn't mean or violent, but only selfish.

If spanking is indeed a danger for the mental and physical health of a child, I'm sure there are equally if not more effective ways: Isolation, taking away toys, taking away tasty food - don't let them have fun. Since ultimately everyone wants to have fun, I'd bet every child would learn quickly not to do those things.

3. Set limits and be consistent, a must… but this being effective if
your child actually listen to you or if the limit is on something that
requires you to do. When your child exceeds a limit what do you do?

Sounds like 'nature' teaching any other life form ...

If the child exceeds a limit ... Give it a sharp crack on the butt.
If the child continues to do it ... Kill it. Crude, but effective.

:m: :cool: :m:

Chagur,

agreed :)

Bebelina
SwedishFish

try and remember once you get to a certain level of intellegence that most things just seem soo obviouse
you are trying to explain quantim physics to prosimians using binary

my suggestion is that all people who believe in smaking kids should be made to wear a badge that says


PUNCH ME IN THE FACE IF IM RUDE TO YOU
I BELIEVE VIOLENCE SOLVES MY ISSUES


UNFORTUNATELY
people that believe in smacking their kids are just too retarded to realise the bigger picture

the real issue is that all the parents that do smack their children actualy are bad parents and need counselling
i believe most parents need counselling prior to having children
the examples set by those who are disfunctional and blame it on not smacking are actualy just disfunctional parents

smacking children teaches them to be hypocrites
and shows them how to use violence against weaker people and animals and undermines the ability of the parent to be loved by the child and removes the parent from the primary teacher role model and so the child looks to other examples of role models that are more violent than the parent
and so you have a few people who have posted on this thread
sad
i hope they heal soon
unfortunately it is like ahlcaholism
you need to admit you have a problem before you can start to work on it
and most people lie to themselfs soo much they feel their entire world would collapse if they started being truthful
this mental illness of smacking children needs to be fixed before
equality of the sexs can be achived
and then sexual disfunctional issues will be able to be considered for repair

i find it soo sad yet choose to laugh because it just seems soo obviouse
but you get that with some things
isnt that rite you geniuses

talk about watching paint dry
its more like waiting for it to dry and then peal off

peace light truth love
groove on all :)

Negative feedback does work.

The issue is if spanking mentally screws up your kids for the future. And if so, at what degrees? If it's true that parents don't know how much force they're using, then that could mean there's still hope for spanking since all the pyscotic adults who were spanked could have been spanked unecessarily hard.

It also seems that, regardless, spanking is unnecessary.

Oh sure spanking is unnecessary. Please provide a means to disciplining a child that does not need spanking? One that I have not given an example of failure by the way.

WellCookedFetus

failure to recognise the child as an indevidual
is the failure to be an indevidual

those who can not be an indevidual can not teach children to be anything more than sheep for the slaughter of the consumerism victim world

the majority of people who hit thier children for lack of any other
method of parenting are just lazzy and selfish and weak mindid
and do not serve as a good example role model for thier children

those who remain from the what is left of the group that hit thier children are the seriousely mentaly ill ones who actualy enjoy it
and that group is allot bigger than most would assume

WellCookedFetus
i could teach you how to parent your children without using violence
HOWEVER
such knolledge is a powerful tool and is not for the profit of those who do not believe in it
most of the posative parenting books are wrong
yes i agree with you on that one
but so are the many ways to make explosives
yet people still blow themselfs up trying to make them for no intellegent reason
BUT when you choose to play with psychological explosives you risk and often hurt the ones around you and with children
YOU DONT GET A SECOND CHANCE TO BE A PARENT
and so once you sit back in your comfortable prozac and ahlcahol
stuper infront of the tv
you can say
well i wasnt that bad
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW
you wouldnt and thats part of the problem

WellCookedFetus
i am aware your views are held by many people and i am addressing it to people in genral
im not inferring your a drug addict
however if you have any spare please send me some :D

failure to recognize the child as an individual

When did I say not the recognize the child as a individual in, fact if you read my post on this thread I quite clearly say the opposite.


the majority of people who hit their children for lack of any other method of parenting are just lazy and selfish and weak minded and do not serve as a good example role model for their children

I could not agree more, I recommended other means of punishment first but believe spanking is still a valid last resort option.

last resort option

you are inccorect
the last resort option is killing the child
and that happens

so once violence has been innitiated as a last resort the violence must increase if the actions are not stopped

if a child picks up a stick and hits you with it
how much self control
do most people have to not lash back at the child
not much

every example is observed by the child

most people believe revenge is a good thing and validate it in some form of situation to jusify thier feeling of wanting to hurt others because they feel hurt and cant deal with it

the cycle of violence
mental and physical
I UNDERSTAND most humans are not yet intellegent enough to
be able to not deal with these things without violence

it just saddens me deeply to see the potential that is soo often flushed down the drain by parents even before the childs first day at school

violence begets violence
excuse begets excuse
christians think violence toward children is as valid excuse to maintain smacking
im not sure what jewish religion teaches on that or muslim
but for all thier hipocriticalism the blazzing sword hangs close over thier head
and so often they order the release by thier own action
USA
is a majority christian and jewish country from what i have heard
so about half the population would be christian
and so half the population think violence toward children is acceptable
GIVEN A GOOD EXCUSE
i gues your per capita crime statistics are a good indicator
soo
considering that
how productive is your child raising techniques
is the population getting more intellegent and less violent
i dont think so
there is your evidence
you dont have to go researching in hundred year old books about whether jesus believed in gay marriage or not

oh how thyne own pasture and seedlings are trampled in the furverouse self justification to gaze upon thyne neighbours
sexual exploits

i thought to covet thy neighbours sex was a sin
and to covet you childs youth
covet negative covet posative
covet covet covet

my word for such behaviour = hypacrites
but all in the best possible taste

groove on all :)

you are incorrect the last resort option is killing the child and that happens

well I guess so, but most parents aren't going to do this due to selfish genetic impulse and federal laws.


if a child picks up a stick and hits you with it how much self control do most people have to not lash back at the child not much

Exactly the point, the child learns quickly the causing pain to others will unleash pain on to s/he self. “What will others do if I do this” becomes a new thought process and critical for the childs future though out life. The child should not be shield from the world even if the parents don’t hit back you think other people and child won’t?


I UNDERSTAND most humans are not yet intelligent enough to be able to not deal with these things without violence

If your assuming I don’t, then you have not heard my "Talking Monkey" speech I rant on about all the time.

I'm thinking spanking only works on children until a certain age. Once they mature enough and they are more intelligent, then you can reason with them. Maybe there is no way to reason with a very young child though.

I want to see some proof for how controlled spanking of a small child really harms them at a later age (assuming you raised them "properly" otherwise). I was spanked maybe a total of three times when I was under 6 (can't remember the age). I learnt very quickly what things were unacceptable. And I turned out fine (if you consider a grade A student with no violent tendencies and no depression and no abusive - in fact none - drugs/alcohol use and healthy relationships with people and healthy attitudes toward society to be fine). Later on logic is good enough (I liked my videogames).

Killing them?! You guys are insane. At a last resort it's perfectly good labour: chain it in the basement and get it to make some sweaters.

WellCookedFetus

i may be wrong but it sounds like you are making an "either-or" situation about how to teach children
either you hit the child or they will be a psychopath

you make a point about the world teaching a person/child that if they hit another person in the street they will be hit back
HOW WRONG CAN YOU BE?
the person reports to the police and the police file a complaint
and blah blah blah
that is the reality
so suggesting that people will hit back is not truthful
the child in the adults body will choose those who are most unlikely to hit back
that is closer to the reality of the situation

if i cut you off in a car and you used a swear word toward me and then i got out of the car and said i did not see you so it was not intentional but because you used a swear word i am going to punch you in the head
what a load of crap to suggest you would be happy with such a development
that makes you a hypocrite if you believe in that
did you use the word logic there somewhere
aply a working model of what is logical and the reality will transpire to be your own disfunctional child looking back at you from a nice comfy police cell while the debate begins of
who said they said they did i didnt
and welcome to the real world
your analagy of violence in the form of hitting people does not ring true in the gang and violent offending examples that fill the worlds courts
your logic is illogical
by your logic they all would be killed by now but they are not and they continue to choose their victims

some more thought is required
good luck

jjhlk
last resort is the word that i was noting
the last resort to life is death
so saying the last resort of a child that you deem unworthy of protection from violence is killing it

i am surprised you remember being hit at such an early age
do you think that a adult is incapable of restraining a child under the age of
what did you say
6 years old
the child will only do something wrong because the parent is not parenting the child
it is called being a bad parent that does not manage their own child
then makes excuses for it by saying lies and then hits the child to get back at it
i call that mental illnes

jjhlk
quote
At a last resort it's perfectly good labour: chain it in the basement and get it to make some sweaters.
---
i understand you may be making a joke here
however
there are adults with children making your sweaters in asia being paid just enough money so they can afford to work
they are called sweat shops
and children are used in them for slave labour to make your cheap products
so the joke is not entirely irrelavant

quote
I want to see some proof for how controlled spanking of a small child really harms them at a later age (assuming you raised them "properly" otherwise).
---
you are making an excuse for hitting not a valid evidence related intellegent choice
and then ask to have someone prove the contrary
that is not logical
so err for you have no logic
so maybe that is one way the spanking has corrupted your mind
good luck

groove on all :)

I will say up front that I did not read the whole thread.

This reply is just to give you one example of child "spanking" in the worst way in my opinion.

When my son was going to school, at the age of 4 years old, there was this boy who had the habit to bite the children who were in that same class. The children got so used to this that at some point they did not even tell the teacher about it anymore, cause it was how he was.

The parents of those children who had really deep bite marks very often (which were mostly all children present) started complaining about it.

So the teacher went to see the parents of the boy.

It turned out to be so that the father of the boy whipped him. The boy, just 4 years old, had the marks of the whip on his back.

Because of this way being "spanked" by his father for as long as he could rememebr in his short 4 years of being alive, the boy did not know better or others who you disagree with, should be "punished".

Thus it resulted in biting the kids he felt he had a problem with.

Very nice way of teaching your children well, don't you think?

At the age of 4, this kid was doomed to become a violent adult, because of the methods of his parents.

It finally resulted in the removing him from the school, unfortunately.

I can only hope that life got better for him over the years.

I feel deep disgust for parents who "teach" their children like this.

Alright, end of the rant.

Banshee,

I never said anything about whipping a child being correct, I was spank I never attack anyone (aside from my brother we don't get along don't ask) the parent must explain to the child what s/he is doing wrong and must make it clear the punishment comes from disobeying the parent and only the parent.

ripleofdeath,

Negative repercussions come from hitting others you know quite well that’s what I meant don't go off into a Straw Man based off a vague example I gave.


if i cut you off in a car and you used a swear word toward me and then i got out of the car and said i did not see you so it was not intentional but because you used a swear word i am going to punch you in the head

I don't understand were your going with this I did not say anything like this. I explain to expect others to attack back, not to attack or enter into conflict is the first lesson to prevent the latter.


your analagy of violence in the form of hitting people does not ring true in the gang and violent offending examples that fill the worlds courts your logic is illogical by your logic they all would be killed by now but they are not and they continue to choose their victims


Then your greatly misunderstand my logic in fact I have no clue how yours works, mind explaining this?

WellCookedFetus
quote
I explain to expect others to attack back, not to attack or enter into conflict is the first lesson to prevent the latter.
---
so the action of hitting or biting back must be immediate and from the person who has been hit or bitten

then your rule would be logical
and void of any hypocritical reinforcers

if i was to take leave of my sences and walk up to someone in the street and hit them obviousely most people would expect people to say they would hit back

but that is not the normal set of events
people are told to not hit back and go to the police and file an assault complaint

i think the expresion of 2 wrongs do not make a rite is what is preached to children

so now look at the most normal set of events in the situation of the child the child does something wrong and the mother says
you wait till your father comes home he is going to hit you for what you have done

so what is the mother doing?
naughty bad mother!

and then the father comes home and says
i love you now im going to show you how much i love you by hitting you

then the child develops one or both of 2 things
either they hit their wife because that is what love is as they have been taught and then their children
or they are taught to hide the wrong doing and expect violent reaction to discovery of such mistakes or errors

what is the lesson you would be teaching them

Banshee
i also know of a very similar case
and many others that vary on similar themes

funny on one hand the child is being taught to not hit and then if the child does something wrong they are hit for the action
then they are told hitting is wrong again and then they are told if they are hit they should not hit back
because 2 wrongs do not make a rite

how fucked in the head can people be
its just soo simple yet very few people have the brain power to understand it

as i said in another post as a joke

come in
sit down
tell me about your mother
or
father

peace light truth love
the path to that we hold above
hypocrites steal feathers from the wings of the dove
trying to fly as their inner child dies
lashing out and screaming
on unfulfilled desires
the answer is simple
the path is so clear
you have to open your heart
if you ever want to hear

groove on all :)

ripleofdeath,

I'll repeat my self: "Negative repercussions come from hitting others you know quite well that’s what I meant don't go off into a Straw Man based off a vague example I gave."


Then the child develops one or both of 2 things
either they hit their wife because that is what love is as they have been taught and then their children or they are taught to hide the wrong doing and expect violent reaction to discovery of such mistakes or errors


Really? I never hit a girlfriend nor do I try to cover-up my mistakes since I have learned that when its found that I tried to cover it up the repercussion are many times worse.

WellCookedFetus
true honesty is rare when accompanied with compasion and empathy and trust

i am curiouse where you draw the line between hitting and not hitting an adult
and would you hit a adult women for the same offence
or would you choose not to hit anyone if they hit you first
assuming you were not being attacked

a straw man?
scarecrow?
i am not familiar with that term

quote
based off a vague example I gave
---
there is nothing vague about hitting a child by the childs perception

two questions for you
1
why should the child not be able to hit you or its mother back if either of you commit the same offence that the child has commited to incur being struck

2
why would you not hit your wife if she commited the same offence that your child has to incur you striking it

are you capable of answering those question consisely
i personaly think you can not answer those questions without being a total hypocrite at the expense of your potential child
but i live in hope

please prove me wrong

quote
aside from my brother we don't get along don't ask
---
could this be an example of something?
i wont pry but you should consider it since you are in posesion of the true facts
i hope you and your brother can heal the relationship

groove on :)

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y: Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

1. I state "Negative repercussions come from hitting others"
2. You state that hitting a person does not mean they will hit back but some other negative repercussion will occur
3. Since Hit a person does not mean they will hit back my position was wrong.

in actually my position was that any Negative repercussions come from hitting others not just hitting back. you simply exaggerated a example I gave to be all conclusive: "The child should not be shield from the world even if the parents don’t hit back you think other people and child won’t?" other people and child won’t?" they my not hit back but they will retaliate by calling the copes, teacher, ect. its still a advent to learn to avoid.


why should the child not be able to hit you or its mother back if either of you commit the same offence that the child has commited to incur being struck

parent is authority you don't hit the parent back, I never did, You don’t attack the boss a even better lesson in life.


why would you not hit your wife if she commited the same offence that your child has to incur you striking it

You don't hit back period, why is that so hard to understand? you lean from a early age that hitting others you will be punished, later you learn all the moral reasons why: retaliation and repercussions. Spanking is not physical violents, if I attached shock collars on my children so that I would not need to hit them then that would be equivocal (though unorthodox) to spanking. Hitting a another person and punishing your child are very different things, I don’t see a hypocrisy in that.

Sibling rivalry between my brother and me, I get along quite well with my sister, it is not connect to our upbring.

Just out of curiosity ...

Hasn't anyone here ever gotten into a knock-down, drag-out
with someone and after the blood cools down, become tight
friends?

:m: :cool: :m:

WellCookedFetus

you need to look at what i have mentioned from a point of developmental psychology

i would suggest you do a little reading about early child development
specificly language acqusition
and development in the time frame that you think hitting is a good idea

i would be surprised if you found any well ballanced psychology
profesionals that think hitting children is a good idea
and a christian scientist is an oxymoron scientist
by the basic definition of sciencetific method and purpose

Chagur
choosing someone to be a friend means making the decision
not to consider them your enemy
if i meet a person who thinks starting fights is a good idea
they are too retarded to be a friend of mine
and would contradict the concept of intellegence

groove on all :)

I have taken several psychology courses. I have read many books on rising children and yes hitting children is out, even so I believe personally that it is a flaw belief, I my self have witness it failing horribly and I my self am not traumatized nor a violent maniac just because my parents were strict and spanked me. Also i do not beleive othodox christiens hold to that belief at all:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155456#post155456

just to clear things up a little for you

when a child get to about 4 years old it is typical for the child to hit and sometimes to bite prior to that age

if the adult is sufficiently intellegent enough they can hit the child back and bite the child back to show the impact of what the child has done
but it is rare that most adults can control themselfs to be able to do this in a manner that does not go beyond what the child can comprehend as a relative action to violence

THIS ACTION MUST BE IMMEDIATE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE BITING OR HITTING
WHILE SHOWING INNITIAL TOLERANCE TO THE FIRST ACTION USING REASON AND TALK AND DISTRACTION AND THEN BITE FOR BITE HIT FOR HIT

most children would be hitting and biting because they are discovering how they can interact with the environment
it is the mental illness of the adult to believe the child is doing it out of malice

parents often cave in while in the process of using seperation
as a form of corrective behaviour modification
which is the parents fault not the childs

THE PARENT IS THE LAZZY ONE
wanting to think they can solve the issue quickly with a striking process

such people are not ready to be parents and often have the child for ego-centric reasons

enough free education im off to bang my head on a different wall

groove on all :)

how would you solve this problem?

quote
WellCookedFetus how would you solve this problem?
===
if i had the same income as the average top selling singer or
sports player

i could solve it quite easily
all it requires is for me to have the money to distribute the technology/information
but unfortunately or fortunately for the world i do not
so tuff luck
maybe in another thousand years someone may stumble across the same information

people respect a person who has lotts of money to be worthy of listening to

until then happy hitting

keep groovin :)

I repeat how would you solve the problem?, not what you need to do it.

what would the information be worth in dollar value?

Are you avoiding my question on purpose? what “information” explain what this important parenting information is.

I don't advocate spanking at all because I'm pretty sure that a parent can sometimes loose control of themselves.

In rare cases spanking might be okay, but it has to follow strict rules:
- Absolutely no hitting of face, back of head, random blows to the body, pushing the child, and other things that common sense deem to be wrong. A slap on the hand or in the diaper area may be appropraite if done immediately after the child misbehaves.

- Absolutely no spanking of the child by a person other than the immediate parent, no nanny, no teacher, no grandparents. I believe that it's very humilating and bad for the child self esteem to be spanked by a person other than their mommy and daddy.

- Spanking should be brief, constructive, and followed by an explanation of what the child did and a kiss and hug after the child promise to try to think.

- The child should always be reminded of their ability to think before spanking is imposed. Tell them that they didn't think like Barney and Blues Clues do.

- If a child make a mistake and didn't hide it, for example, came and told you that he peed on the carpet behind the desk and showed you the spot, never spank that child, but commend them instead for telling you the truth, because if you spank them, all you'll get is a child that lies to avoid your spanking.

- Never hold a grudge and spank your child five hours after they misbehaved. Punishment should be swift.

I like timeouts a lot, my kids 4 and 2 immediately go the designated corner after misbehaving, they go by themselves and stay there for a couple of minutes, then they get up and apoligize. Even in the middle of the biggest tantrum, if I say time out, the world stops and the child knows what to do.

Hmmmm a friend of mine keeps getting called during the day by the nursery because her 2 ½ year old son keeps getting bitten by a girl of similar age there. She bites other kids, but mostly its him about twice a week. The bites are starting to scar.

If you think the girl should be bitten back, but not by the ‘nanny’ and that the punishment should take place immediately are not you not discounting the fact that we live in a modern age where children spend the most time with people who are not their parents?

Hi weebee,
I think the nanny have no right to spank the child, but she have all the right to dismiss the child from her facility if his behavior of biting is consistent and can't be corrected by normal disciplnary actions like time outs, deprive from story time, ect.

If I was a nanny, I would discuss with the parent the biting problem. And I would suggest a program at home to solve this problme. Biting in little children is common but has to be reprimended and controlled or it will become a habit. The parents must have ignored this problem at home for it to become such a nuisance at school, I know that for a fact, because my 2 year old son started to bite his 4 year old sister at every slight disagreement between them over some toy. Everytime he bit his sister, I took her side and gave her the toy even thought it was his exclusive car, and he figured out quickly that the key to mom's support and life enjoyment is not biting but kissing up to mom to get what he wants. So now my son kisses up to the nanny or me and hug and kiss and say please, and walla it works like majic and he gets everything he wants.

WellCookedFetus
and i could scream out
show me how much money you have
prove to me that you could afford to pay for it

but the reality is it would not go that far (im am speaking in an idealistic way)
as i already know

so that is why i stopped short and asked you the question

what would such knolledge be worth in dollar terms
hypertheticaly speaking
to know how to raise your children to be near geniuses
regardless of some labeled learning dissabilities
and without loosing love or without creating issues that may prevent the child from finding love
without being a hypocrite
free to follow any religion not intrenched to any retardation of
societal disfunction

but ofcourse you do know i am completely crazzy
and obviousely flawed by idealism

groove on :)

…or maybe it only came to light when she joined the other children in the playgroup.

But what is the philosophical and psychological distinction between a parent hitting their child as a form of physical discipline, and that of a major care giver using the same form. How could this habit be corrected if the child has no siblings, or if it is exclusively occurring in the playgroup? Could it be that modern lifestyles dictate that some of the responsibly of raising children is placed within schools and playgroups?

I think your advice is good, I’m only trying to raise questions.

I agree with my friend when she said that she does not want the girl to get a complex about it. My sister was sat in a cupboard because she would not pay attention in class (she was 4). When I was 6 the teacher made a fellow class mate stand behind my desk to make sure I did not fidget (she gave them sweeties as a reward after the class).

I actually think that the girl should be put in a situation where she is playing with a wider ranging group in terms of age. Now that’s interesting. I remember playing with kids years younger and older than myself. I wonder what effect only playing and socializing with children of the same age will have on kids. . .anyway, will see how it goes with the biting girl!

Originally posted by weebee
But what is the philosophical and psychological distinction between a parent hitting their child as a form of physical discipline, and that of a major care giver using the same form.

That is a very good question, and the answer is very tricky because emotions and parental instincts and love for the child enters the equation.

First we have to agree that a nanny is a pait entity. And no matter how much of an angel he/she is, if it wasn't for the monetary gain, she wouldn't care for a child that is not biologically her or hers through an adoption. A parent on the other hand cares and keep the child out of pure love for that child. A parent doesn't need money to care for their own child or put up with the misbehavior. I believe that the child can make this distinction and the child can feel genuine unconditional love from nanny's care type of part of her job description love. When a child is spanked by a parent, he/she knows that this spanking is merely to correct behavior and have nothing to do with the parent love capacity to the child. While, when a nanny or another care giver spank, the child is confused because first one other than his parents is now capable of hitting him, and thus anyone can hit him, second, he may think that he's getting hit because his parents are not paying the baby sitter or because the baby sitter discriminate againest him, or that he is not wanted.

weebee

you had no interest in tryng to help the child in the first place did you

you were just shooting the breeze!
with a percieved fellow religouse conformist
sad!

empathy and pro-activeness is a rare thing
more so when worked with intellegence
this thread degraded in to a pre-schoolers philosophy of
i dont know but i like that one
which one do you like
i like that one
oh i dont like that one but i like that one
oh ok well i like that one two but i dont like that one
which one do you think is best
well i like both but i dont like that one
why
because

sssshhhheeeeesssshhhhhh
:rolleyes: :eek:

ripleofdeath,

If your not going to answer my question, I no longer beleive you have anything worth saying.

Again the religious right do not believe in spanking religiously if you read the link I provided.

Also I think the people here have been explaining why with great depth, and I don’t believe this thread has gotten childish at all.

WellCookedFetus
pay no heed
i just dispare at ignorance and idle gossip in the realm of pretence

i have already learnt the lesson of not giving fuel to those who seek to gain reasons that they may disprove for ego reasurance
and an excuse to not bother trying to evolve past the cave man intellect

im just a little slow to learn as some others have already left the thread :)

if you seek truth then you will find it with an open mind
not a closed book

one of my own flaws could be considered to be perciving those who seek doors to want more than to use the wood to build a thicker wall around their mind

you may call me a slow learner :)

groove on :)

I call you mental disabled since you just refuse to answer my question, is it that hard of a question to answer?

WellCookedFetus
quote
how would you solve this problem?
---
to use most peoples logic
if i knew the answer to that question i would already be rich and would be most unlikely not to be posting on this board or any other

groove on :)

So then your saying don't spank, but I don't know what you can use for a alternative?

WellCookedFetus

unfortunately the bigger issue lies in the heart of the parent
many think it is there rite to be able to strike the child as they see fit

SOO they do not seek an alternative and would not bother even if one was offered

groove on :)

I see many alternative punishments and reinforcement tactics but so far there is not replacement for spanking as a last resort.

ripleofdeath;

Too true words are air,
No meaning but that given,
Yet what is life;
arms raised or redden faces
If not meaning laden?

The child was not mine,
Standing on the street corner crying,
Yet I smiled helped by memories
pulling mother’s skirts.

In this discussion I am the child,
Raised years ago,
Single, barren, my womb unused
Yes I’m careful to point fingers.

I am not my brother’s keep
Unless he agrees to be mine,
Till then I’ll raise philosophy
In company with practicalities.

to know a story cut from cloth
of silkin touch and stains washed off
pure of that which holds a key
to those who suffer endlesly
as they call the faults and errs
the chorus sings their ego-flares
to cope with all as you might think
is just as much of life to drink
of all those calling another tune
but see true virtue as flight to the moon
you'll catch a glimpse
as thoughts pass by
as all consider and spectate by
their own disfunction their own hobbled thought
be weary of the trueth in memory
the value can be naught
to equate the cost to self and life
is inviting others ego to smite your life
so collect your thoughts
collect your life
discard the tales stained ego trails
walk the path that calls your name
and naught but you shall know the blame
naught but you shall steer the course
naught but you shall know the source

groove on :)

Taking rhyme in hand you waved off reason,
Yet with mastery those words you did season
And as my eyes wearily comb in early morn
A flight to the moon seems fittingly born.
A silent clap must yet be given,
I can but not disagree in six’s or seven’s,
Yet I must protest with tired yawns,
This sea beaten patch has become my lawn,
Not by drawing its windy course
But by holding those I love close.

Good night ;)

Ruin my thread with crappy poetry will ya... :cool:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#poetry

Naughty stuff..

I would say that spanking is just another form of punishment, and how effective it is depends on the child. Certainly, a parent should never smack a child in a moment of anger, but should wait until he/she has cooled down, and then administer the punishment in a controlled manner. Otherwise, the spanking will not be a punishment, but an emotional reaction of the parent, and the child will be nothing more than a punching bag.

Originally posted by Ebedalmo
I would say that spanking is just another form of punishment, and how effective it is depends on the child. Certainly, a parent should never smack a child in a moment of anger, but should wait until he/she has cooled down, and then administer the punishment in a controlled manner. Otherwise, the spanking will not be a punishment, but an emotional reaction of the parent, and the child will be nothing more than a punching bag.

i could not have said it better. Spanking is effective (thus should be used) under certain conditions. First, the child responds positively to it ( i did). Second, the parent administers spanking effectively, making sure they are in a calm state before and after spanking and the childs knows why they are being spanked.

I don't think there's anything wrong with spanking, but whether or not it's effective really depends on the child.

If I ever have children, my first disciplinary tactic will be to tell them to cease and desist the undesirable behavior. If that doesn't work they will have a "time-out" (standing in a corner or sitting on their bed or whatever). If that doesn't work, it's butt-whipping time. Eventually, it will probably be easy to determine which form of punishment works best and I can just go straight to that.

When I was a child, I actually preferred spankings to being grounded; the reasoning being that a spanking only lasted a few minutes, while being grounded lasted for days or even weeks. Since grounding proved to be the more effective punishment, my parents began using that. But I was a fairly well-behaved child, so I never got in too much trouble.

THe worst thing is that now in America, if your at a grocery, and your child is actin like an a-hole and you smack him, then alot of people will start thinking your a child beater and will sue you!

your child is actin like an a-hole and you smack him

I would think an adult would know better than the child.

the answer is you don't smack a child in public.

Originally posted by Agent Smith
THe worst thing is that now in America, if your at a grocery, and your child is actin like an a-hole and you smack him, then alot of people will start thinking your a child beater and will sue you!

Maybe they sue you because they know something that you don't and that is that however bad the child is acting, you are acting worse, because you taught it to act like that by being such an excellent example.
Try treating your child with respect once in a while.

Bebelina,

I afraid you still don't understand, which is better letting your child become a failure in life or having to implement tough love (such as spankings)? When all else fails it still a valid and necessary option. By the way how do you teach a child with respect when they have a tantrum in a grocery store?

It is very noticeable that not one poster in this topic has said, "I'm a parent of x children and never spanked them. They grew up well adjusted and knowing right and wrong". Those espousing spanking have all said something to the effect of, "As I child I was spanked, I usually had it coming". It reads like a bunch of students debating the rights and wrongs of parenting based on books only.

I am a father of 3 girls and have, and will, spank them. I just know the 'liberals' will jump on me for that.

So what are the conditions under which I feel physical admonition is required? The conditions vary and depends very much on circumstance. For example, 5 years ago my eldest was 2, the younger was about 6 months old. The elder one saw the baby as nothing more than a doll. One day she had it in mind put her sister in to a toy moses basket. After patiently explaining and repeatedly explaining why this was a Bad Idea(tm) I thought the point got across. Walked away to do something, get dinner or a drink, she promptly but the baby in a basket and preceded to drag her up a flight of stairs. I hope people accept that the babies health and life where potentially in danger at this point. As someone said, you only use physical force if someones life is threatened. Explanations had obviously failed.

Similar, our eldest sleeps badly. As a younger child we put her to bed at 7pm. 5 minutes later she would be downstairs, chatting loudly and demanding constant attention. Put her back to bed, repeat, lather, rinse. This would go on past midnight. We would read to her for hours (often forgoing food until 11pm), put on music, stay in the room until she fell asleep, positive re-inforcement (star charts, treats etc.), negative re-inforcement, the works. This went on for about 2 years. At what point do people who espouse non-physical means think that all reasonable behaviour has failed and will continue to fail? Anyone got any clever ideas to make the child realise the behaviour is unacceptable. Note that she still does not go to bed until past 11pm. This level of sleep deprivation is deemed bad for their health.

Funnily enough, I have hardly had to smack my youngest. A strong word and 'The Look(tm)' puts her in place. I still have to threaten our eldest after spending hours asking her to do trivial tasks. She absolutely refuses to perfrom basic tasks or help people about the house. Typical examples being, go shopping with family, kid immediately starts on the "I want, I want". Child taken outside to stop the incessant whining. Get home and start unpacking, child then incessantly demands attention, food, drink, watch what she is doing.

I yeh, she was diagnosed with ADHD and does not obey normal behaviourial norms. I hope people accept that asking a child to do something, nicely, about a thousand times is being more than understanding.

In a grocery store you let the child lie on the floor and scream until it gets selfaware and realizes it amounts to nothing.

People don't mention having kids of their own to protect the kids from eventual internet predators.

Featus, I do understand. The issue is not the child being difficult, the issue is the parents lack of patience.

Originally posted by Bebelina
Featus, I do understand. The issue is not the child being difficult, the issue is the parents lack of patience.


The point I was making was also that, where do you stop being patient? 1 day, 1 week, 1 year or maybe ten years. If the person absolutely refuses to learn a lesson, despite attempting every possible method of teaching or behavioural modification, what do you do? Let them keep misbehaving - that way leads to anti-social behaviour.

Bebelina,

I don't see letting the child lay on the floor screaming is respecting the child, not that I disagree with that means of dealing with the situation, I just don't see how respect is a means of teaching children.

Are you a synesthesis? Do different colors represent emotional states for you or something?

Originally posted by Bebelina
In a grocery store you let the child lie on the floor and scream until it gets selfaware and realizes it amounts to nothing.




You know what? If I see a kid lying screaming on th efloor while being soundly ignored by it's parents when I'm out shopping, I think 'bad parent'.

I'd rather the parents admonish the child, and threaten a slap, than do nothing.

I'm partly being selfish, I dislike children, and would rather not have to step over them while they throw tantrums. Also, I don't hold with the idea that no response will give the child any insight.

You're right, letting the child lie on the floor and scream would naturally be the "when all else fails" option. First one must of course try to talk some sense to the child, explain the situation, why it can't get what it wan't right now.

It worked on my best friend though, we grew up very close. My mother gave in and gave me what I wanted, her mother let her scream as much as she wanted until my friend realized that people were looking at her and she felt embarrased. There are no definite right way to approach this, all I know is that violence is the wrong way, for sure.

I don't think "bad parent" if I see a child screaming because it can't get candy, but I do think "bad parent" if a child cries for being physically or verbally punished, words can hurt as much.

How is that the all else fails option? You could take the child to a bathroom and punish it tell it black and blue :D

For being a well cooked featus, one would assume that you are familiar with pain, but maybe it's revenge you're after then? If you were cooked then others must suffer too?

I don't think your ad hominem is a valid.

Well, maybe if you add some humanity the ad hominem makes sense.

I'm sorry I still don't understand the nature of your argument (aside from it being a fallacy) are you asking if spanking is for revenge? Spanking the child in the bath room is to teach the child that you did not like what they did in the store and that if they do it again they will receive more negative reinforcement.

Yes, you are subconsciously punishing your parents through your child. Treating the child as badly as they treated you, for revenge.
You may think you are doing the right thing, but instead you are only repeating negative patterns that probably your child will repeat itself and the circle of violence never ends until somebody within it steps out.

I don't believe in violence as a method of raising children, and never will, no matter what anybody else has to say about it.

Really? I don't think that is the case, perhaps for some it is but not all, not even the majority. Even if it is a circle of violence it does not harm the child in a socially in fact as many of us have stated on this thread it may be the only way to prevent a child from having particular social dysfunctions. Obviously nothing will get you to change you mind I only hope that you have naturally timid and subordinate children that won’t test you on this.

i would like to thank you all for reaferming my decision to never have children...

Welcome to the club cthulhus slave :)

Spanking the child in the bath room is to teach the child that you did not like what they did in the store and that if they do it again they will receive more negative reinforcement.

Not really, the child is unable to fully comprehend this connection. The child is taught that hitting someone is OK and that placing the fear into someone that they will be hit is also OK. Most children will copy what they see and hear.

Violence is not a learning tool. Violence does not teach good behavior.

Bebelovely

I don't believe in violence as a method of raising children, and never will, no matter what anybody else has to say about it.

hmmm... seems we have something in common. :)

(Q),

Really (Q)? I never hit or spanked other children, spanking taught me to do what the parents say or else they will spank me, later on I gained a more comprehensive understand of good and bad. Though child psychology likes to believe that all children think alike that is totally untrue and each child may respond and think differently of a event.

Negative reinforcement is a proven means of teaching, if shock collars removes the “violence” part that you find so offensive then I would advice it immediately.

You cannot put all confining perimeters on things (such as your statement on violence) since there are exceptions and re-interpretations, thus making your statement a generalization fallacy.

spanking taught me to do what the parents say or else they will spank me, later on I gained a more comprehensive understand of good and bad.

How unfortunate, perhaps your parents should have tried to reason with you and guide you instead. You may have gained a comprehensive understanding much earlier in your life. It would appear by your statement that spanking did not accomplish that. All it taught you was that if you didn’t do what others told you to do, you would be spanked. Where is the logic in that?

Though child psychology likes to believe that all children think alike that is totally untrue and each child may respond and think differently of a event.

True, but that doesn’t really matter. Childs minds are more or less blank slates that tend to ‘soak up’ whatever they see or hear. If they see that spankings are a way to get you to do something out of fear, that’s what they’ll remember.

In my opinion, spankings begin a cycle that is very hard to break. Much of a child’s trust in their parents can dissolve away when spankings are used for retribution.

Negative reinforcement is a proven means of teaching, if shock collars removes the “violence” part that you find so offensive then I would advice it immediately.

Now, I know your kidding. Negative reinforcement is simply that; negative. Why not consider positive reinforcement instead, or do you believe this system does not work?

Children must make mistakes – that is how they learn. And they must be positively reinforced in their understanding of those mistakes. If you begin early this type of reinforcement with a child, spankings, or the fear of physical punishment, will most likely not be required.

If a child sees that you are made upset by some action of theirs, they know they can use this later on to get the same reaction, especially if your method of punishment is a spanking. As well, spankings become less of a deterrent over time and the parent is right back where they started. Of course, by this time, reasoning with the child usually does not work.

You cannot put all confining perimeters on things (such as your statement on violence) since there are exceptions and re-interpretations, thus making your statement a generalization fallacy.

Can you give me any examples or exceptions where violence has been successfully used as a learning tool? Of course, if you use examples like ‘shock collars’ that is not considered learning – that would be more akin to forced indoctrination.

Let me ask you this (anyone) – if spankings are what you consider proper, try to honestly answer the following questions:

Should you sit down with a child and explain why they are being spanked? Do you think the child will understand?

Should you prepare a child for spankings? In other words, should you create a chart that indicates ‘number and level of spankings compared to mischievous acts or misbehavior exhibited?’ ie. Supermarket tantrum is worth 20 lashes.

Should you only use your hands, or can other tools be used, like a belt, for example?

How hard should you hit a child?

Where do you draw the line between spankings and child abuse?

Do you consider it appropriate to spank your child in public?

How unfortunate, perhaps your parents should have tried to reason with you and guide you instead. You may have gained a comprehensive understanding much earlier in your life. It would appear by your statement that spanking did not accomplish that. All it taught you was that if you didn’t do what others told you to do, you would be spanked. Where is the logic in that?

They did reason and try to guide me, I did not listen, if a child does not listen then spanking is necessary. Some child do listen and some do not take Ryan for example.


True, but that doesn’t really matter. Childs minds are more or less blank slates that tend to ‘soak up’ whatever they see or hear. If they see that spankings are a way to get you to do something out of fear, that’s what they’ll remember.

Sadly genetics does play apart though and some children are router and more independent then others form birth.


Now, I know your kidding. Negative reinforcement is simply that; negative. Why not consider positive reinforcement instead, or do you believe this system does not work?

Perhaps you should look into what negative and positive reinforcement are, before making such vague and possible inaccurate statements. Negative reinforcement is to us pain to teach someone what not to do (Or what to do it can be use both ways) positive reinforcement is opposite: to use reward to teach people what to do, unfortunately positive reinforcement cannot teach someone what not to do: you reward a child for being good but you cannot reward a child for being bad. If the child does something bad and enjoys it removal of a reward is unlikely in teaching them.


Can you give me any examples or exceptions where violence has been successfully used as a learning tool? Of course, if you use examples like ‘shock collars’ that is not considered learning – that would be more akin to forced indoctrination.

Yes: spanking, it taught mean hence it is an exception to your argument.

Should you sit down with a child and explain why they are being spanked? Do you think the child will understand?

Yes thats the first thing to do, even before you have to spank them, but if the child does not listen (like many don't listen) then you need to punish them.


Should you prepare a child for spankings? In other words, should you create a chart that indicates ‘number and level of spankings compared to mischievous acts or misbehavior exhibited?’ ie. Supermarket tantrum is worth 20 lashes.

Sounds a little burocratic I don't think I could follow such a code I would forget. I would rather find other lesser means so punishment first; gradually go up to spanking after each reputations of the same infection.


Should you only use your hands, or can other tools be used, like a belt, for example?

For very bad infractions the hand may not hurt enough, a belt or paddle is better, also belting the heel of the foot is very effective and does not create bruises.


How hard should you hit a child?

As hard as legally allowed.


Where do you draw the line between spankings and child abuse?

When you slap your child against the head for no good reason that abuse, when you need to hurt your child out of personal vengeance that’s abuse. When you burn their skin with cigarettes that abuse, ect.


Do you consider it appropriate to spank your child in public?

If I want to turn on sadistic pedophiliacs and get cussed at by hippies then sure I would do it in public.

Yes thats the first thing to do, even before you have to spank them, but if the child does not listen (like many don't listen) then you need to punish them.

That’s interesting – I find that most children that don’t listen are the ones who have been and continue to be spanked. If you haven’t yet been in an environment of children who have never been spanked, please do so – they listen and for the most part, do not require punishment.

I would rather find other lesser means so punishment first; gradually go up to spanking after each reputations of the same infection.

You will quickly find that this does not work. It’s amazing what can be accomplished by simply talking to the child as opposed to beating him. Do you hit your girlfriend if she doesn’t listen to you? If not, why hit a child – it is you who are supposed to know better then the child.

For very bad infractions the hand may not hurt enough, a belt or paddle is better; also belting the heel of the foot is very effective and does not create bruises.

SO, as long as the beatings don’t leave any serious marks on their body, which is not very clearly defined, as you’ve presented, then it’s OK to go ahead and beat children with whatever instruments are handy? Doesn’t that just give you warm and fuzzy feelings all over, folks?

As hard as legally allowed.

And who defines those parameters? Is there such a thing as a “legal beating?”

When you slap your child against the head for no good reason that abuse, when you need to hurt your child out of personal vengeance that’s abuse. When you burn their skin with cigarettes that abuse, ect.

Yet, hitting the child with a belt or paddle is not abuse?

Perhaps you should look into what negative and positive reinforcement are, before making such vague and possible inaccurate statements… you reward a child for being good… If the child does something bad and enjoys it removal of a reward is unlikely in teaching them.

FYI – positive reinforcement has nothing to do with giving or taking away rewards. Perhaps you are the one who needs to look into it.

It is quite clear to me that the beatings you took as a child have taught you one thing and one thing only, and that is that the beating of children is OK as far as your concerned. You’re unclear as to what is appropriate and what is not – in fact; I think some of your answers are contradictory and unsubstantiated. IMO, you have refuted your own argument.

That’s interesting – I find that most children that don’t listen are the ones who have been and continue to be spanked. If you haven’t yet been in an environment of children who have never been spanked, please do so – they listen and for the most part, do not require punishment.

Read some of my first post on this thread I give a very good example of a child that was never spanked (Ryan).


You will quickly find that this does not work. It’s amazing what can be accomplished by simply talking to the child as opposed to beating him. Do you hit your girlfriend if she doesn’t listen to you? If not, why hit a child – it is you who are supposed to know better then the child.

Again look over the amazing accomplishments of simply talking to Ryan instead of punishing him.


SO, as long as the beatings don’t leave any serious marks on their body, which is not very clearly defined, as you’ve presented, then it’s OK to go ahead and beat children with whatever instruments are handy? Doesn’t that just give you warm and fuzzy feelings all over, folks?

Actually its not hard to cause great pain without causing any permanent damage so it very well defined. It gives me a cold sweat feeling actually.


And who defines those parameters? Is there such a thing as a “legal beating?”

Most states require physical poof of child abuse, if you don’t causing any (such a bruising, broken bones, scaring, ect) then your not liable. Of course this does not cover sexual abuse and child neglect.


Yet, hitting the child with a belt or paddle is not abuse?

If for no good reason or your own entertainment then it is abuse, for punishment though it is quite legal.


FYI – positive reinforcement has nothing to do with giving or taking away rewards. Perhaps you are the one who needs to look into it.

http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/prtut/reinpair.htm

Your reward the child for doing the behavior you want of them, the child does that behavior more often. You do not give the reward if the child does not does the behavior you want to encourage, the child will do the behavior more often.
You though have not stated a definition on +/- reinforcement yet you claim I'm wrong, without evidence your argument is a fallacy.


It is quite clear to me that the beatings you took as a child have taught you one thing and one thing only, and that is that the beating of children is OK as far as your concerned. You’re unclear as to what is appropriate and what is not – in fact; I think some of your answers are contradictory and unsubstantiated. IMO, you have refuted your own argument.

Actually I was against spanking tell I saw Ryan, I did not want to have what was done to me done to others, then I discoverd that some children do infact need it.

If I did contradict my own statement that would be Ad Hominem Tu Quoque on your part: Even if I am a hypocrite that does not mean my argument is wrong. In the event of two contradicting statements at least one must be wrong, but you cannot say the one against you is wrong because of that. Perhaps you should tell me what statements I have said that you feel contradict each other.

That link does not describe positive reinforcement - it describes bribery.

If you truly believe that physical violence solves your problems, that's your opinion.

There are a lot of people who have not been raised with physical violence as their so-called, "learning tool." And it appears you are not one of them - that makes it very difficult for you to make comparisons.

It is probably the same reason why I can't fathom the idea of physical violence towards children. To me, it makes no sense at all. In fact, it is a rather sickening thought that inherently disturbs me.

To each his own. No offence, but I hope you don't have kids, for their sake.

I'm sorry, you can call it what ever you want but that the psychological definition of positive reinforcement. I have seen with my own eye the effects of raising children without spanking: some are little angels and some are demonic monstrosities, I believe you should always be open minded to the option so that you can use it if your child needs it, for you sake I hope you have very timed and submissive children. As for me having children obviously you did not read.



cthulhus slave: i would like to thank you all for reaferming my decision to never have children...
WellCookedFetus: Welcome to the club cthulhus slave :)

I'm sorry, you can call it what ever you want but that the psychological definition of positive reinforcement.

No, it is not. That link describes bribery, plain and simple.

Positive reinforcement is the act of communication that builds self-esteem and inspires confidence in children.

Whatever you're describing is for training dogs.

Punishing children with physical violence is not an option. Children don't "need" to be physically abused, that is pure crap.

Just because you were abused as a child does not justify your need to beat children.

And if you think positive reinforcement breeds "demonic monstrosities," you're delusional. That is farthest from the truth. The demonic monstrosities are the ones who hit children.

Originally posted by (Q)
[i]And if you think positive reinforcement breeds "demonic monstrosities," you're delusional. That is farthest from the truth. The demonic monstrosities are the ones who hit children.

Demonic Monstrosities is a strong phrase but I have seen completely spoilt children who know they can do what they want without any reprimand. Those children are out of control.

The problem with debates such as this is that people assume a 'one size fits all' stance. No two people are alike, what works for one fails with another.

(Q), a question for you as such. What would you do with a child who absolutely refuses to learn good behaviour? At what point do you give in and either,

1) Spank the child. Note I do not say beat, that is different.
2) Allow them to continue so you end up with a badly behaved child.

From experience, I found it took a year of extreme sleep deprivation.

(Q)

Your argument against positive reinforcement is based off opinion rather then proof. Positive reinforcement be it on dogs or humans is the same thing: since humans are animals just really smart ones with opposable thumbs and language, positive/negative reinforcement should work on us and it has been proven so. Also if it is bribery then you are simply calling a proven aspect psychology bribery.

I have stated evidence to my claim that non-violent parenting can fail horribly again I ask you to look over the case study of Ryan that I presented on previous posts. Trust me if you meet Ryan you would call him Anti-Christ, especially after he leaves teeth mark scar on your lag :p

I can see that you are in total denial and that you use one giant Begging the Question fallacy, I’m not going to continue arguing with you it would go nowhere, I might as will be arguing theology with you and trying to convert you to another religion or lack of.

Thed

I have seen completely spoilt children… Those children are out of control

I think you’ve identified the problem from the get go. As a father, you probably know that becoming a father is a learning process, and mistakes can easily be made. If the child is “completely spoilt” then that raises the question as to how the child became spoilt in the first place. Was it the fault of the child?

If the child already has a serious behavior problem, one needs to ask how the child progressed to that stage.

What would you do with a child who absolutely refuses to learn good behaviour?

I don’t think it wise to teach good behavior. That is something the child should begin to understand itself as they develop, although I wouldn’t say it is simply an understanding of good vs. bad behavior. There is much more to it than that.

Similar to a child burning their hand on a stove, even though you’ve told them that would be the result of touching a hot stove, the child must be allowed to make mistakes in order for them to learn, unless of course it places them in serious danger. Behavior, as we as adults have defined it, is not a concept that can simply be taught to children. They can’t yet understand the consequences of their actions, and it should not be expected of them to understand.

If the child undergoes a continuous regime of positive reinforcement from birth (not some dog training reward system), they will not see that they should learn good behavior as opposed to bad behavior. They will instead learn that it is logical to act in such a way that will benefit them in anything they wish to do by building the self-esteem and confidence for them to make their own decisions.

Children want to learn, they want to know things, they continually ask questions. And you may or may not have noticed, they rarely, if ever, ask whether something is good or bad, especially when it concerns behavior.

So, what would I do if the child refuses to learn good behavior? Absolutely nothing, as far as the child were concerned. I would instead take a long hard look at my parenting skills first and decide if I am doing everything I can to provide an environment of positive reinforcement.

Therefore, if I am confident that I’ve done everything I can to raise the child in this manner, there is little else to do. When the child is old enough to understand the consequences of their actions and they have decided to act in a way that will not benefit them, that is what they will do, and it is unlikely you or I will stop them.

From experience, I found it took a year of extreme sleep deprivation.

And I believe that is part of making the decision to have children in the first place. Surely every parent must wonder if they are raising the next Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer, in the extreme. So, it stands to reason that parents will make those sacrifices in order for them to raise a child who does not turn into a serial killer, so to speak.

Some parents will make more sacrifices then others and to a higher degree. I can’t imagine the sacrifices a parent has to make for a child with Downs Syndrome or other related medical problem, for example.

If the child does not have a learning disability or other serious medical problem, there should be no reason for them to grow up with the need for physical punishment of any kind.

If you’re spanking your child, take a look in the mirror.

Of course thed, I don’t have all the answers. You are right in that there is not one fit-for-all solution for all children. However, I know that spanking is not the answer - in fact, I think it is part of the problem and an easy solution. Child rearing is hard.

Your argument against positive reinforcement is based off opinion rather then proof. Positive reinforcement be it on dogs or humans is the same thing

That is where you are wrong. There is a big difference in the training of dogs with a reward program and the raising of children with positive reinforcement, and it is not my opinion.

Originally posted by (Q)
[i] Positive reinforcement is the act of communication that builds self-esteem and inspires confidence in children.

Here's a point, that I think is relevant. Given it has just taken me an hour to start this reply.

For some reason my eldest daughter has developed a thing about Mosquitoes. For the last three days the only conversation in the house[1] has been,

"Why do Mosquitoes bite you?", "Where do they bite you?", "Does it hurt?", "Do they bite you at night", "Do they bite you in the playground?" ... Followed by, "There's a mosquito in the house!", a lot of crying, weeping and wailing.

We have answered each question as asked, as best we can and politely at that, only to be asked again. The previous set of questions has been asked about, oh!, a 100 times. Ever gone through the sequence of, "Why is this?", "The answer is ...", repeat, lather, rinse.

Now apply this to bad behaviour. Kid snatches toy from younger sibling declaring, "That's mine!", younger child starts crying. You sit both down and explain the nature of sharing, why it is bad to snatch and the toy belongs to the younger child anyway. Ten minutes later, repeat scene. Repeat, lather, rinse. Two years later you are having the same conversation every ten minutes or so.

Frankly, if the elder child misbehaves neither me or the wife have the energy left to explain why it is wrong anymore[2]. We know that anything we say will not be taken on board. I once thought it was just me until I caught my Dad grabbing the kids face, turning it to face him, and stating that whatever had happened was wrong. The child immediately repeated whatever they where not meant to.

We have tried every trick in the book, withdrawing/promoting privileges, star charts, (excessively if needed) rewarding good behaviour, straight talk, private talk. Well, you get the idea. After 7 years you start running out of ideas.

[1] By the only conversation I do not exaggarate. First thing I was greeted with on returning home, "Dad, There's a mosquito in the house". "Not going to bed, there's a Mosquito in the Bed".

Me and the wife have not talked for 7 years due to this child interrupting every few minutes, really. It is that bad.

[2] We do not believe in violence but are pushed sometimes.

[3] This post typed over 2 hours, interrupted by said child only 3 times. They are still awake and bouncing upstairs.

[4] The Child psychologist reckons this is borderline ADD and we are coping well.

(Q)

Really what would that diffrence be?

Thed

I’m going to simply make a judgment call from your description in my humblest of opinions. (me humble?)

First of all, the fact that you’re doctor has stated that your kid(s) is borderline ADD says a lot. However, a doctor will also describe for you a child with serious ADHD, and it is not a pleasant description, by any means. I would not know how I would handle such a child.

But by the sounds of it, you’re kids adore you and love you very much. Although they may be asking the same questions over and over, and making a big deal out of small things, I think they are simply vying for your attention, which they appear to hold in very high regard. They want to talk with you; to carry on conversations as best as their undeveloped minds can orate.

You have a great family situation that others could only dream.

Don’t worry about not talking to your wife for the last 7 years. Spend every waking (and in your case, sleep deprecated) moment that you can. You’ll have plenty of time to spend with your wife once the kids are gone. That’s when you’ll wish you didn’t have to talk with your wife. ;)

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
(Q)

Really what would that diffrence be?

The important point (Q) has been making is 'talk to the child. Simply thwacking a kid for misbehaviour solves nothing, even though they do quickly learn not to do something. They also learn their parent is capricious and likely to hurt them at the drop of a hat. This can cause serious long term psychological damage. It is well recognised that child abusers where themselves abused as children. They learn abuse as the only way of rearing children.

What (Q) is saying, I think, is that verbally rewarding the child is more important than giving them a sweet as a way of rewarding good behaviour.

I'll try to explain in detail. What all children want, desire and crave is the attention of their parents. It is all too easy to get into a cycle of chastising children for bad behaviour and not thanking them for good behaviour. All the child learns is bad behaviour gets a response from the parent. Good behaviour is not rewarded. Same for rewarding them with sweets or other physical forms of reward, Mc'D's, toys or what not. What the child does not get is a sense of actually being thanked. The hardest thing to learn and do with a child is to simply say "Thank you, well done, I liked that" when they are doing something well.

That can be anything from drawing a picture of you, cleaning their room even a little, getting themselves ready for school, helping a sibling out. All manner of proper behaviour should be rewarded with the <b>words</b> "Thank you". The results are quite staggering. I have only ever used physical rewards as a way of reinforcing a point.

I.E. After a week of unsuccessfully trying to get them to keep bedrooms tidy we might say, "OK, we will take you to 'x' if you do this for me", "If you do not do this we don't do 'x'". End of week and 'x' has been acheived so we go to whatever. Next week, kids automatically dowhat you want' but now expect reward of 'x' and get stroppy when they don't get the reward. Oddly enough, they now don't do what you wanted. Re-inforcing this by reinstigating the reward teaches them nothing worthwhile.

Do you see the difference now.

The important point (Q) has been making is 'talk to the child. Simply thwacking a kid for misbehaviour solves nothing, even though they do quickly learn not to do something.

I have never said that was wrong in fact I agree with that, I advocated spanking as a last means of punishment after the child repeatedly refuses to listen, and evidence supports that there are child that do not in fact listen. Also spanking does not often cause psychological trauma, your getting confused with abuse.


What (Q) is saying, I think, is that verbally rewarding the child is more important than giving them a sweet as a way of rewarding good behaviour.

Verbally reward is still positive reinforcement, you reward the child or dog for conducting a behavior you want of them, the child or dog does it more often for that reward, there is no specification on what that reward is. I quote “Psychology: in the new Millennium 6th edition by Spencer A. Rathus”:



Positive Reinforces increases the probability that an operant will occur when they are applied. Food and approval usually serve as positive reinforces.


Also the website I provided gives examples in which verbal reward or approval is used.



Martha was a five-year-old girl who attended preschool. She seldom played with the other children. Workers at the preschool began praising and admiring Martha when she engaged in cooperative play with other children. As a result of this procedure Martha's level of cooperative play with the other children increased.



Students in Professor Ohno's class were given a weekly quiz. The students' percent correct quiz responding on the first quiz was low, so Professor Ohno began praising the performance of those students who answered the quiz questions correctly. As a result of this procedure, the students' quiz performance improved on the rest of the quizzes.



What all children want, desire and crave is the attention of their parents.

No not all children desire or crave attention from their parents at least not over personal entertainment: if a child likes to do something that is bad even if there parent do not approve of it many often do it. Your statement is a generalization fallacy that many of us have posted here as erronous.


I.E. After a week of unsuccessfully trying to get them to keep bedrooms tidy we might say, "OK, we will take you to 'x' if you do this for me", "If you do not do this we don't do 'x'". End of week and 'x' has been acheived so we go to whatever. Next week, kids automatically dowhat you want' but now expect reward of 'x' and get stroppy when they don't get the reward. Oddly enough, they now don't do what you wanted. Re-inforcing this by reinstigating the reward teaches them nothing worthwhile.

And dogs respond the same way, by not rewarding them each time they will revert. Again I do not see the difference between dogs and children (aside from intelligence, language and opposable thumbs) when using positive reinforcement.

In addition to what thed has orated so succinctly is that it is important to use positive reinforcement when the child acts in a way that the parent considers ‘bad behavior.’ Of course, it is imperative that the child does not view the situation in this manner. Remember, we are not teaching the child good or bad behavior – we are teaching the child to think for itself.

In situations that we consider ‘bad behavior,’ we must ask the child what they think will benefit them, all the while keeping the atmosphere and dialogue ‘positive.’ The parent must aid the child to think through a scenario to its ultimate ends. Of course, if the child is receiving this type of instruction from an early age, they quickly begin to think on their own and as they develop, these types of ‘ bad behavioral’ situations diminish. And when new ones appear, the child inherently begins to think the situation through before acting.

Once the child begins to reach this stage, the results are staggering. Simple reminders of thinking things through on occasion are all that is required.

And please remember, you can explain a situation in great detail to a child, but unless they get the chance to experience that situation first hand, they most likely will not learn. In those situations, it is important the parent be patient and understanding. The child WILL make mistakes and it is important not to chastise them during this time – even though they may have flushed your car keys down the toilet. ;)

If an adult is not prepared to handle the most difficult situations a child can create, they should NOT have children in the first place.

*If you think you’ll go ballistic when a child sets your couch on fire, don’t have kids.*

And dogs respond the same way, by not rewarding them each time they will revert. Again I do not see the difference between dogs and children (aside from intelligence, language and opposable thumbs) when using positive reinforcement.

That's easy to understand - if you've never experienced positive reinforcement as a child, you'll most likely know nothing about it. How can you make comparisons?

Also spanking does not often cause psychological trauma, your getting confused with abuse.

Spanking IS abuse and does cause psychological trauma, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

No not all children desire or crave attention from their parents at least not over personal entertainment

This is ridiculous in the extreme. If a child has reached this stage, then there are already serious problems with the parent and the method used to raise the child.

Also the website I provided gives examples in which verbal reward or approval is used.

Again, you are confusing positive reinforcement with a reward system (bribery.) They are not related in any way. You DO NOT reward children for their efforts. Children are not dogs.

In situations that we consider ‘bad behavior,’ we must ask the child what they think will benefit them, all the while keeping the atmosphere and dialogue ‘positive.’ The parent must aid the child to think through a scenario to its ultimate ends. Of course, if the child is receiving this type of instruction from an early age, they quickly begin to think on their own and as they develop, these types of ‘ bad behavioral’ situations diminish. And when new ones appear, the child inherently begins to think the situation through before acting.

I have seen this with my own eyes fail (refer to references of Ryan). Some children do not care, they enjoy what they are doing and the consequences do not bother them. I do not believe you should not do that but some children will not listen, you must tell them what they are doing is wrong and why it is wrong, if they continue you must discipline them, failure to discipline will make the child believe s/he can do what ever they want despite the warnings of their parents, a lack of respect for the parents is generated and narcissistic personality develops as the child gets what every they want despite s/he parents attempts other wise.


That's easy to understand - if you've never experienced positive reinforcement as a child, you'll most likely know nothing about it. How can you make comparisons?

What a blatant Ad Hominem! How can you say I have never experienced positive reinforcement as a child? And how can you say I know nothing about it even if I have never experienced it, how does my understand of psychology and reading of my step-mothers how to raise a child books not validate that I at lest know what positive reinforcement is? Ad Hominem is a fallacy and a failure of proper argument construction on your part.


Spanking IS abuse and does cause psychological trauma, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

This is a difference of opinion, can you bring up proof that spanking alone traumatizes children?


This is ridiculous in the extreme. If a child has reached this stage, then there are already serious problems with the parent and the method used to raise the child.

This is a serious generalization fallacy on your part! How do you know that no children desire personal entertainment over attention? How can you blame this on the way the child was raise because if you do then you are debunking your own ideals on raising children since I have brought up a child raise thoroughly on such ideals and yet desiring personal entertainment over positive attention.


Again, you are confusing positive reinforcement with a reward system (bribery.) They are not related in any way. You DO NOT reward children for their efforts. Children are not dogs.

Again you refuse to notice this is what psychology defines as positive reinforcement I have brought repeated proof on this yet you ignore it.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
No not all children desire or crave attention from their parents at least not over personal entertainment: if a child likes to do something that is bad even if there parent do not approve of it many often do it. Your statement is a generalization fallacy that many of us have posted here as erronous.

The statements you make are not logically connected. A child will do something they know the parent does not like, purely to see what happens. More so than adults a child will push the envelope. This has nothing to do with what they generally want.

If a child is largely ignored, when behaving properly, yet get's attention when behaving badly (even if it means getting hurt), many choose behaving badly. It then gets the attention of the parent. This is a well documented aspect of parenting.

On a personal note, if I start playing with my kids when I walk in from work it is hard for them to stop. I'm not in the house 10-12 hours a day, they hardly see me except at weekends. Once they have my undivided attention they want more of it. In short, the kids are happiest when we are both sitting down and they are sitting on top of us.

You can accuse me of the fallacy of overgeneralisation (I do know what that is) but until you have kids you really do not know the truth of what I said. Their center of life throughout years of developement is the parent. They can not feed themselves for 10+ years, can't even reach a water tap for the same time. We decide what they eat, wear, say, is proper, is wrong, is nice, is bad, correct ... the whole shooting match. Nothing happens unless we say it. Of course they rebel but they still rely on the parent to provide guidance or needs.

As (Q) says, a child who requires entertainement above the love (which is what the above is) of their parents is probably beyond help.

What I am saying is not meant as a slur on the parents of Ryan. Seems to me that kid has serious problems that needs addressing. Probably along the lines of serious ADHD or maybe an autistic spectrum disorder such as Aspergers'.

Thed

Once they have my undivided attention they want more of it. In short, the kids are happiest when we are both sitting down and they are sitting on top of us.

And that is exactly what one must expect, encourage and dedicate themselves during those child-rearing years.

You’ve achieved family perfection. Take a bow.

thed


You can accuse me of the fallacy of overgeneralisation (I do know what that is) but until you have kids you really do not know the truth of what I said.

I will also accuse you of an ad hominem: just because I don't have children does not mean I do not know what I'm say, I do in fact have experience in talking care of children.

On the issue of children in play, a child may do thing simply for fun, for example a child will jump on a bed for fun regardless of what attention it brings from parents, children will play do they not? I think your people are misinterpreting what I’m saying. If a parent tells them to stop and they want to do it anyways what authority does the parent have in making the child stop?

Also Ryan is not Asperger’s nor mildly autistic he shows emotion well and does not get obsess about any one thing, has excellent motor skills. Also he’s able to pay attention and stay fix to one task long enough that he most likely does not qualify under ADHD. Ryan is simply spoiled and does not respect others, he does what ever he wants and dam if anyone should try or tell him to stop.

Ryan is simply spoiled and does not respect others

It appears you've uncovered the problem. Spanking will only serve to increase his disrespect for others.

And of course, children can't really spoil themselves.

And of course, children can't really spoil themselves.

No raising some children by your ideals spoils them.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
thed

I will also accuse you of an ad hominem: just because I don't have children does not mean I do not know what I'm say, I do in fact have experience in talking care of children.

Hmm, I smell a troll here. So far you have accused me and (Q) of two logical fallacies simply for disagreeing with you. Just to remind you, Ad Hominen = attack the person not the argument. We are disagreeing with you and offering some personal perspectives. As you seem unable to remember further back than yesterday, I started out agreeing with you. Only when I took the opposing stance did you start accusing me of logical fallacies. Who is guilty of Ad Hominens then?

But your grasp of English and logic seems incapable of understanding that.


If a parent tells them to stop and they want to do it anyways what authority does the parent have in making the child stop?

Every authority in the world. But that seems to be too subtle point for you.


Ryan is simply spoiled and does not respect others, he does what ever he wants and dam if anyone should try or tell him to stop.

As I said to (Q) a while back, some kids are spoiled and behave atrociously. This is the fault of the parents and not the child.

Spanking will not help in a case like this as it misses the underlying cause. The kid is not getting the attention they require from the parrents.

Do you disagree with these reasons not to spank children?

http://www.odu.edu/webroot/instr/ed/kkersey.nsf/pages/reasons

You tell him, Q!

No thred you claim that just because I do not have children I can not understand, this is claiming the person is wrong because of a personal defect, thus a ad Hominem, note I did not quote your inter statement as a Ad Hominem.


but until you have kids you really do not know the truth of what I said.


But your grasp of English and logic seems incapable of understanding that.

These being a being a Ad hominem no ifs,and or buts about it.


Every authority in the world. But that seems to be too subtle point for you.

And how does that parent have the authority? Explain why the child would listen? Explain why Ryan does not?


Spanking will not help in a case like this as it misses the underlying cause. The kid is not getting the attention they require from the parrents.

I have to disagree: Ryan was given a lot of attention, my step mother would praise him for being good, play with him and always speak to him with control and loving attitude.

Yes Q I do.

1. Lowering the Childs self esteem is not as damaging as once believe as stated in scientific American in late 2001 (I can not remember the exact article but if you require I could pull it up) to much self esteem can lead to narcissism, a child should be raise between both extremes.

2. I fail to see how spanking breeds hostility and anger, I don’t hit people nor am I angry has a psychotically study been done to prove that spanking causes the children to grow up into a hostile and angry adult. If not then this is just a assumption.

3. Spnaking may not stop a undesirable behavior but the other methods have also failed, just because spanking is fallible does not mean that it is wrong.

4. “Create additional problems.” Could they explain what those are?

5. “Lead to child abuse.” Really do they have proof on this or is this another assumption? I could say lack of spanking leads to child abuse: when Ryan punched his baby sister my step mother lost control and hit Ryan very violently.

6. “Lead to neurotic disorders.” Again do they have proof of this? You can’ believe something just because your agree with it they need to supply proof to their claims

7. I won’t disagree with this one but so? What are the long term side effects? Does the child stop loving there parents or hurt there parents in revenge later in life? There emotions only seem temporary.

8. “Teach that might makes right.” What??? I don’t even understand what this one means?

9. “Block the learning process.” Lack of reference to proof and evidence.

10. “Lead to fear and avoidance.” Really? Fear and avoidance of doing what ever they did wrong again or a general fear and avoidance?

11. “Fail to teach appropriate behavior.” This is a repeat of #3 only rephrased.

12. “Make a child hit back.” Actually the child learns not to hit back as the parents wrath would be inquired again. Non-spanking parenting seems the lead to children that hit, again refer to Ryan.

13. “Hitting anyone other that a child is called "assault and battery" and is punishable by law.” And there point is? This is very much out of the issue of spanking a child.

14. “Weaken the relationship between the hitter and the one who is hit.” Again do they have proof on this? I love my parent dearly many others that have been spanked will probably say the same. I see my parents as my guides and guardians in life, would I if I did not respect them?

15. “Block communication.” Very vague and does not have any proof or evidence.

16. “Have to become more severe as the child gets older.” Quite the opposite I did not need to be spanked in my teen or even above 11, I did chores for my wrongs and them seem totally effective.

17. “Give the child a model for aggression and violence.” Yes it does it teaches the child how to raise its children, this model though does not easily apply to how to treating other adults or children.

18. “Not stop when the lesson is learned but when the spanker is tired.” The dynamics of spanking is to spank the child when they did something wrong, when they repeat spank again, there is plenty of time for the parent the rest in between, so I don’t see how this happens.

19. “Get misdirected at an innocent party.” What??? I don’t even understand what this one means?

20. “Not promote inner control.” Quite the opposite the child learn to control him self because if s/he does not their parents will spank them.

21. “Lead to parent abuse in the future when the roles have reversed and the parent is dependent on the child.” I Want to keep my parents him with me rather then a old folks home, this is so my mother and live out her last years doing what she loves most: demanding things of me. So I see this statement as totally false and again like most of the others lacks proof and is simply a fabrication.

22. “Make the child dependent on external control for his behavior.” Not at all the fear become internal like a conscience “do this and you may get punished” leads to “don’t do this because it wrong” later in life.

23. “Affect other observers in negative ways.” Yes it does but when does that have to affect how you discipline your children? Should your disciplining of your child be a fashion “See I don’t spank aren’t I cool?”?

24. “Backfire on the parent - causing him to suffer emotionally or physically on account of his own behavior.” I find that very doubtfully my mother quite proud of it in fact.

25. “Confuse the child because it is frequently followed by affection, favors or gifts. This teaches a scary message- that love involves hitting and hurting - a concept that is believed by wife beaters and all consenting victims of batterings.” Why didn’t I get any gifts?!?! I think this statement is critiquing a bad strategy to parenting rather then spanking its self, if this strategy is not used then it invalidates the statement.

26. “Children who are not hit by their parents are more likely to find non-physical ways to settle their differences with siblings and friends.” Quite the opposite Ryan hits other child dispute the fact he was never hit (at that time). To much self esteem leads to bully like behavior and narcissism.

27. “People who were not hit as children tend to feel proud of that fact and special on account of it.” Good for them, though I don’t think most adults give a dam.

28. “When parents learn other successful techniques for discipline, and, as a result, usually like themselves better.” Oh very true, but if they have to they still have the right to spank, I do not advocate spanking a cure all I advocate it as valid if needed dependent on the child.

29. “When parents learn other successful techniques for discipline, their relationship improves.” What with each other? Do they have proof on this?

30. “If a child is usually hit for misbehaving, he may opt to take a spanking and risk getting caught - if his only reason for behaving is to escape punishment. We want to give our children reasons for behaving - not reasons for NOT misbehaving!” I do not disagree: tell the child ahead of time, make them think about it, but what happens when they don’t listen? What happens when the child does it anyways how do you stop them? What if time outs do not work or if the child does not listen to you in general?

31. “Our goal for discipline should always be future oriented - helping the child to profit from his mistakes and not repeat behaviors that are dangerous or self-defeating.” My mothers personal quote: “I do not raise my children to love me, I raise them so they can become successful adults, their lives are more important to me then how they feel about me.”

From the answers you’ve given, it appears you and your family is caught in a cycle of violence and physical abuse as the preferred method of child rearing. What’s worse is that you consider this perfectly acceptable therefore; I can only conclude that you are hostile and angry. Although, that hostility and anger may be suppressed to a certain degree, the damage is evident.

This statement alone speaks volumes:

My mothers personal quote: “I do not raise my children to love me, I raise them so they can become successful adults, their lives are more important to me then how they feel about me.”

Children’s lives ARE their parents and their parents’ love and attention – they don’t have anything else. If your mother chooses to take that away and replace it with physical abuse, then it is bound to fail miserably.

And this gem:

when Ryan punched his baby sister my step mother lost control and hit Ryan very violently.

Your stepmother should be arrested immediately and kept away from children at all times.

Ryan has serious problems and is most likely a perfect example of the cycle of abuse that exists in your family. Perhaps he is the only one in your family that understands.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
No thred (sic) you claim that just because I do not have children I can not understand, this is claiming the person is wrong because of a personal defect, thus a ad Hominem, note I did not quote your inter statement as a Ad Hominem.

Colour me stupid, but I said you would not understand, not that you where wrong. There's a difference. I offered a personal opinion, one (Q) seems to understand, but you decided to attack me rather than take the statement at face value.

Before I had kids several people told me basically the same thing - "you can't understand", I accepted their wisdom for what it was. My Brother In Law keeps telling me it only gets harder as they grow up. I bow to his wisdom as he has two teenagers. I don't get all huffy telling him he's accusing me of a 'personal defect'.


These being a being a Ad hominem no ifs,and or buts about it.

:::: Edited to change phraseology ::::

I used the words so that you understand the difference between a personal opinion and an attack on you personally. If I decided to use a true Ad Hominen the phrases "stupid, idiotic, moronic plebian with the IQ of an aardvark " would feature strongly. Or I would post, the URL http://www.mylilsite.net/youare.swf


And how does that parent have the authority? Explain why the child would listen? Explain why Ryan does not?

The Parent has the authority by virtue of being the Parent. How you choose to exercise that is the difference between a good and bad parent. Same for how you handle a child not listening.

My eldest daughter is adept at not listening. But she also knows the consequences of her actions. It does not involve hurting her but she is miserable if she insists on continuing her cause of action. Amazingly, she is learning, albeit slowly.

As to why Ryan is not responding to his carers, no idea. Without knowing the full details and the child in question, anything I say will be a wild generalisation. Seems to me he may have a strong presonality and is very active/intelligent. The trick of parenthood is working out a regime that works for all, compromise is a good word for me. This is not simple in practice and a lot of mistakes are made reaching that happy balance. I'd give it 20 years before all parties are happy. In my case, more like 40 years with my parents.


I have to disagree: Ryan was given a lot of attention, my step mother would praise him for being good, play with him and always speak to him with control and loving attitude.

Again, seems to me there are other issues. You have to find them and that is not always easy for all concerned.

To again use an analogy, my eldest has again been sleeping badly recently. 3 nights she's been awake at 2am. She claims nothing is wrong. We know something is bothering her but she will not admit to it. Personally I am hurt that she does not trust me to talk to her but I also respect her personal space. I may also be very wrong. We'll see.

Originally posted by (Q)
Thed

And that is exactly what one must expect, encourage and dedicate themselves during those child-rearing years.

You’ve achieved family perfection. Take a bow.

Unfortunately the pressures of modern life and running a household means this does not happen as often as the kids would like. If they had their way, we would never move from the couch, locked in an embrace. Bless 'em, with a mace.

Originally posted by (Q)
From the answers you’ve given, it appears you and your family is caught in a cycle of violence and physical abuse as the preferred method of child rearing. What’s worse is that you consider this perfectly acceptable therefore; I can only conclude that you are hostile and angry. Although, that hostility and anger may be suppressed to a certain degree, the damage is evident.

I am not hostile nor angry towards people, my mother is not hostile or angry towards me hasn't been in years. I don't see how any damage has been done. As I have mention before my mother does not preferred spanking she used it when all else fail my sister never been spank and may never be would that means she’s out of the cycle? I don't want nor plan of having children would that make me out of the cycle to?


Children’s lives ARE their parents and their parents’ love and attention – they don’t have anything else. If your mother chooses to take that away and replace it with physical abuse, then it is bound to fail miserably.

So if the child ends up as a serial kill but loves s/he parents it was all worth it?


Ryan has serious problems and is most likely a perfect example of the cycle of abuse that exists in your family. Perhaps he is the only one in your family that understands.

Obviously you did not read anything else I have said about my step mother, she does not believe in spanking she followed all those books and yet her child is spoiled. My step mother lost her nerve with Ryan because the books failed her. My step-mother hates my mother and step-father and their ideas on rising children just as much as you do, yet your ideals have failed her.

thed,


Colour me stupid, but I said you would not understand, not that you where wrong. There's a difference. I offered a personal opinion, one (Q) seems to understand, but you decided to attack me rather than take the statement at face value.

Well saying I would not understand seems like a attack on my it invalidates what I have said so it is the same as calling me wrong.
your phrases falls under the category of a Ad Hominem you do not need to insult someone directly that would be a Ad Hominem Abusive.

Also thank for the personal information on your family but what do those examples have to do with the this argument on spanking?

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
My step-mother hates my mother and step-father and their ideas on rising children just as much as you do, yet your ideals have failed her.

I'll go out on a limb here. You are quite welcome to tell me I am wrong, stupid, an idiot, or whatever comes to mind, call me a logical fallcay if that helps. I really do not care, this is only a medium for information exchange. As they say, it is only usenet.

I think you know what the problem is and are looking for a logical, independant answer. Hence the (what I perceive as) angst in your posts. You see Ryan as a younger version of yourself and am trying to protect him from whatever happened to you. OK, shoot me if I am wrong, really.

What troubles you?

This Be the Verse

They fuck you up, your mom and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can.
And don't have any kids yourself.

-Philip Larkin



dont hit your kids :(

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Also thank for the personal information on your family but what do those examples have to do with the this argument on spanking?

We seem to have sequed(sic) from the original thread, as usual. I offer these examples of where kids might be spanked by some but are not. My eldests recent behaviour probably would have resulted in a thwack 5 years ago, I was also not in total control of myself then. Hence my comment on her not confiding in me. The damage may have been done already.

Originally posted by storni
This Be the Verse

http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/P/Pink%20Floyd/Pink%20Floyd%20-%20Mother%20lyrics.htm

This describes my Mother.

Originally posted by jjhlk
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#poetry

Naughty stuff..

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
thed,

Well saying I would not understand seems like a attack on my it invalidates what I have said so it is the same as calling me wrong.
your phrases falls under the category of a Ad Hominem you do not need to insult someone directly that would be a Ad Hominem Abusive.

Again, I was not calling you wrong initially, though certainly implied I'll admit. Just not in a position of understanding. In the same way I could not understand some one who lost a loved one, a parent, very early in life.

Your insistence that this is an insult strikes me as central to why this thread was started. Please tell me this is stupid.

Implying qualifies under a Ad Hominem, in fact that is what I notice: implying I was wrong.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Implying qualifies under a Ad Hominem, in fact that is what I notice: implying I was wrong.

Funny that, I freely admit that I may have taken the wrong tac yet you refuse to answer my very blunt questions to you. Why is that?

You can still call me stupid, no offense taken.

and what was that quesion again?

We seem to be going around in circles. Yet you are not answering my questions or invites to call me stupid. Why did you ask the question?

WHAT QUESTION!

Please repeat I don't know what your talking about!

Very simply, Spanking your child?

I feel you are asking why you where spanked (read abused) as a child and why Ryan suffers the same. (Q) has seen the same I believe.

Again, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Tell me and I'll shut up. No harm done.

But to me spanking != abuse.

Ryan is not spanked so I don't see how he "suffered the same". also I still don't see what your getting at I will call you "vague" rather then stupid.

I think WCF argued fallaciously by presenting two extremes. There is an alternative between hitting (no euphemisms please) a child and raising him/her in a Skinner Box. Children tend to become narcissistic if they are ignored or abundantly idolized for qualities they do not possess. Use accordant negative reinforcements for undesirable qualities, and explain why they are undesirable and how the reinforcement reflects a natural deterrent. Only use negative reinforcements after the second violation if it’s relatively minor; always explain first.

I used to get hit as I child. My natural response was to commit the punishable offense almost as soon as the fear subsided. I saw no justice in my punishments; I merely resented its source; hence if I could get away with it- I would do it. I’m still like that now.

Negative reinforcements that illustrate real consequences and rationale motivate the subject to avoid doing undesirable things. Punishments that seek to shape behavior for no other reason than more punishment (even if accompanied by explanation) achieves little in that respect.

I think I have been advocating the middle ground this whole time: I do not recommend or believe in spanking as the answer to everything. My approach was that you talk to the child tell them what is good and bad and why, if they do things right they need to be rewarded, if they violate a rule or principle they need to be punished, spanking is something that I believe is a perfectly valid form of punishment, if needed or not is up to the child’s behavior.


I used to get hit as I child. My natural response was to commit the punishable offense almost as soon as the fear subsided. I saw no justice in my punishments; I merely resented its source; hence if I could get away with it- I would do it. I’m still like that now.

Well that quite the opposite of how I responded, again I believe the parent should vary how they raise a child based on the personality of the child, some children never needed to be spanked others do. Also I would like to say how sorry I am that you never developed a sense of morals and are still willing to do things wrong as long as you can get away with it. Your parents most have never got you into the habit of thinking about the consequences independently, either that or your just a bad person.

I don't know.
The natural reaction of parents is to spank. Psychological knowledge still doesn't know shit compared to instincts.
There MUST be something beneficial about it.

I have an enormous family, not immediate but like 9 aunties and 3 uncles on one side and 5 uncles and 2 aunties on the other, add to that their spouses and I have scores of cousins.
Anyway, what I'm saying is I've spent alot of time observing parent-child interaction, something I've noticed is the time when parents really have a hard time controlling themselves is when their kids put their own life in danger.
When parents spank over their child being embarrassing or a brat its a different type of frustration.
I don't think spanking in those cases is warranted and its more of a conscious anger, it only happens because there is a society in which people are expected to act a certain way, when a kid doesn't a parent gets embarrassed or whatever, but this is not natural.
But when a kid is playing with a snake, or lying on train tracks I think taking the child away from the danger and then putting him in the danger of a wooping is beneficial.
This would have been a very important thing to do back when life wasn't so safe and easy and medical attention didn't exist.
As I said other animals do it, your child's survival is more important than its having a non-smacked-ass, or non-blowhole-burned pectoral or whatever your style is.

So I think spanking is right in some cases, I think everything we naturally have the urge to do must have spawned from a behaviour that was "right", not just right but required for survival.
From eating to murder.

Also I would like to say how sorry I am that you never developed a sense of morals and are still willing to do things wrong as long as you can get away with it. Your parents most have never got you into the habit of thinking about the consequences independently, either that or your just a bad person.

I do not see the threat of punishment as a valid or legitimate deterrent in and by itself. This does not mean I have no conception of right and wrong. There are some deeds I can get away with and do, and some deeds that I can get away with and don’t do- depending on whether or not I find the actions just. In either case, the ability of some force to inflict pain on me in retaliation for my actions is not the standard by which I measure the permissibility of my behavior. If this is how you think, then I should be pitying you.

Inflict pain on me is not the limit of my consequences comprehension, doing things wrong harms others and yes they can retaliate buy imprisoning you, suing you, killing you, maiming you, ect, but harming others from a selfish genetic stand point is ill acceptable in societies as other may not help you in return, being a evil social organism won’t get you far, (being a total altruist is also not biologically sound) being a functional and reliable member of society is the best strategy to a good life.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I merely pointed out that the threat of punishment is rarely considered a legitimate deterrent. I really don’t have the will or desire to unravel your archaic notions of “selfishness” and “altruism”. I’ll only say that your assessment is wrong: being violent, brutal, and hedonistic can be an effective survival strategy in some societies, and being fair and productive can be a major disadvantage.

read "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins my interpretation is very vague, I would advice this before you say things based off your own ignorance.

I am ignorant because I haven't read one book? Whereas you are intelligent for stating something centuries of human history negates? Okiedokie!

no but you said you did not know what I'm talking about thus you were ignorant of the subject. Selfish genetics does in fact accounts for the evil of humanity as selfishness with a genetic cause as only greedy animals that give a dam about them self’s survive, but then way do people or social animals even get along to begin with? Selfish genetic theory accounts for that as well in great detail, but this is all off topic.

Selfish genetics does in fact accounts for the evil of humanity as selfishness with a genetic cause as only greedy animals that give a dam about them self’s survive...

Sorry. I don't speak Klingon.

So that another thing your ignorant off?: can't even tell sci-fi language from spiel on selfish genetic theory, maybe I should pity you?

No. I just can't tell sci-fi language from bad English. Learn how to write before posting. It helps. ;)

*based "off" what I read*

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I don't know.
The natural reaction of parents is to spank. Psychological knowledge still doesn't know shit compared to instincts.
There MUST be something beneficial about it.

I have an enormous family, not immediate but like 9 aunties and 3 uncles on one side and 5 uncles and 2 aunties on the other, add to that their spouses and I have scores of cousins.
Anyway, what I'm saying is I've spent alot of time observing parent-child interaction, something I've noticed is the time when parents really have a hard time controlling themselves is when their kids put their own life in danger.
When parents spank over their child being embarrassing or a brat its a different type of frustration.
I don't think spanking in those cases is warranted and its more of a conscious anger, it only happens because there is a society in which people are expected to act a certain way, when a kid doesn't a parent gets embarrassed or whatever, but this is not natural.
But when a kid is playing with a snake, or lying on train tracks I think taking the child away from the danger and then putting him in the danger of a wooping is beneficial.
This would have been a very important thing to do back when life wasn't so safe and easy and medical attention didn't exist.
As I said other animals do it, your child's survival is more important than its having a non-smacked-ass, or non-blowhole-burned pectoral or whatever your style is.

So I think spanking is right in some cases, I think everything we naturally have the urge to do must have spawned from a behaviour that was "right", not just right but required for survival.
From eating to murder.
Hey good point, I see what you're sayin man, spot on, you rock.

What? Someone had to say it...

Ok then Dr Lou Natic yes it was a very good speach, but jess man you did not need to go kissing your self, we could do that for you. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/kiss.gif

:o :)

when Ryan punched his baby sister my step mother lost control and hit Ryan very violently.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to ask. Has Ryan punched his baby sister again since your step-mother "physically punished" him?

The natural reaction of parents is to spank.

That might be the case if the parents themselves were spanked as children, but it is certainly not the natural reaction a parent would have.

But when a kid is playing with a snake, or lying on train tracks I think taking the child away from the danger and then putting him in the danger of a wooping is beneficial.

Nonsense. You are assuming that children should know and understand the consequences of their actions. The most common mistake parent’s make is assuming their children should act like adults.

So I think spanking is right in some cases, I think everything we naturally have the urge to do must have spawned from a behaviour that was "right",

If one has the ‘urge’ to hit children for whatever reason, they should seriously consider seeking professional help themselves.

Lorcalon,

I would not know I have not visited since last year.

(Q),


That might be the case if the parents themselves were spanked as children, but it is certainly not the natural reaction a parent would have.

I have to agree there the its not a natural instinct to spank, the natural instinct is simply to lash out violently at what ever angers you. Spanking could be seen as a interpretation of that instinct but it under for better cognitive control.


If one has the ‘urge’ to hit children for whatever reason, they should seriously consider seeking professional help themselves.

Why? :confused:


Nonsense. You are assuming that children should know and understand the consequences of their actions. The most common mistake parent’s make is assuming their children should act like adults.

Not at all, all the child needs to know is that if the child does this s/he will get spanked, this is very effective with young children who do not have the focus or cognitive ability to understand the true meanings to why something is wrong. Assuming the child should act like and adult is when instead of spanking them you explain to them in detail why something is wrong.

the natural instinct is simply to lash out violently at what ever angers you.

This makes less sense than spanking. If your nature is to lash out violently, perhaps you need to seek help.

this is very effective with young children who do not have the focus or cognitive ability to understand the true meanings to why something is wrong.

Yes, they understand that something is wrong - someone is hitting them.

Assuming the child should act like and adult is when instead of spanking them you explain to them in detail why something is wrong.

How do children learn anything if you don’t explain?

Talking to a child is a good thing and they tend to prefer it to a beating.

(Q),


This makes less sense than spanking. If your nature is to lash out violently, perhaps you need to seek help.

I'm not saying mine I'm saying all people in general. So you have never gotten angry at something? I'm sorry to tell you this but if you never had such a impulse then your the mentally abnormal one not I.


Yes, they understand that something is wrong - someone is hitting them.

Ya and they don't do what ever they did again out of fear of being hit, the child won't play with snakes or lay on train tracks, would you just leave the child to die, because you can't spank them when they refuse to listen by any other mean?


How do children learn anything if you don’t explain? Talking to a child is a good thing and they tend to prefer it to a beating.

Of course I advocate talking to the child, but what happens when the child does not listen? I have seen what happens and it not pretty. If you tell a child not to do something and s/he does not listen what do you do? You could try time outs or groundings, but what if that fails to? You can try to separate the child from the problem but you can't keep a child from all things s/he could do wrong and you can't separate s/he forever. If the child does something very dangerous and does not listen to your warnings how do you convey to them the seriousness of the problem and the seriousness of disobeying?

So you have never gotten angry at something?

Of course, but my reaction has never been to lash out violently.

I'm sorry to tell you this but if you never had such a impulse then your the mentally abnormal one not I.

The civil world would beg to differ.

Ya and they don't do what ever they did again out of fear of being hit

That is a stretch of the imagination. How is the child supposed to know that being hit is connected with anything other then being hit? It is the beatings they fear, and the person doing the beatings.

would you just leave the child to die, because you can't spank them when they refuse to listen by any other mean?

The world is not so black and white as you propose to paint it.

Of course I advocate talking to the child, but what happens when the child does not listen?

This is where your level of understanding of children disintegrates. For some reason, you can’t seem to fathom that children actually do listen, and that it depends on how they are treated.

If the child does something very dangerous and does not listen to your warnings how do you convey to them the seriousness of the problem and the seriousness of disobeying?

Again, you don’t seem to understand that treating the child with respect and talking to them throughout their entire development will not warrant this kind of scenario to exist. You are under the impression that all children act the same way because your worldview of raising children is one of beatings and abuse. And of course, I can understand why you are unable to see past this worldview simply because the world I describe never existed for you.

Of course, but my reaction has never been to lash out violently.

That says nothing about you having or not having the urge to do so. Through proper teaching and learn of social ideals we try not the lash out at things in anger, that does not mean we don’t have the impulse to do so, if you do not have that impulse then there something very unusually with you.


That is a stretch of the imagination. How is the child supposed to know that being hit is connected with anything other then being hit? It is the beatings they fear, and the person doing the beatings.

That’s like asking how lab rats came to fear a red light because when ever the red light was turned on they would get an electroshock. How did the rats figure out the connection between the light and the electroshock? Bets me, probably neural connection and the biological process of “learning”. A child works the same way: if you spank the child every time they do something the child will learn not to do it, of course actually telling the child what s/he did wrong and how to avoid another spanking does increase the speed of making that connection.


The world is not so black and white as you propose to paint it.

How so? Elaberate


This is where your level of understanding of children disintegrates. For some reason, you can’t seem to fathom that children actually do listen, and that it depends on how they are treated.

No this is where my level of understanding children meets personal experience: Some children do not listen, period! You can say otherwise but I have seen it, its a plain fact that Ryan for example does not listen to his parents, I have seen other children that again do not listen to there parents there for some child do not listen to there parents. I observer, theorize and prove, there is no getting around it, it’s a fact.


Again, you don’t seem to understand that treating the child with respect and talking to them throughout their entire development will not warrant this kind of scenario to exist. You are under the impression that all children act the same way because your worldview of raising children is one of beatings and abuse. And of course, I can understand why you are unable to see past this worldview simply because the world I describe never existed for you.

First of all I have not seen "treating the child with respect and talking to them throughout their entire development" ever working, that not the say it hasn't but I have also at least seen this strategy fail in the short term, and in a comparison to child that were spanked the non-spanked children seemed to immature, unempathetic and narcissistic.

Second off you obviously have not read through this thread (ok so its long I’ll forgive you for not reading through it) I have repeatedly stated that all children are individuals with different personalities and psyches and that spanking is not need for all children, some child can be raise by reasoning alone. The problem is your statement that is in fact says that reasoning with a child works universally, this is the generalization fallacy.

Third, Again you did not read the thread you would have also seen that I do in fact have personal experience and observations in non-spanking based parenting (look up “Ryan” and “Thias” as detailed examples I placed).

if you do not have that impulse then there something very unusually with you.

OK – If this is not merely your opinion, I’m willing to hear your argument as to why it is considered unusual to not have impulses of violent behavior.

Is everyone prone to exhibit violent behavior?

That’s like asking how lab rats came to fear a red light because when ever the red light was turned on they would get an electroshock. How did the rats figure out the connection between the light and the electroshock?

Strawman.

of course actually telling the child what s/he did wrong and how to avoid another spanking does increase the speed of making that connection.

I’m glad you agree with me – talking does work.

Some children do not listen, period! You can say otherwise but I have seen it, its a plain fact that Ryan for example does not listen to his parents

I think it has already been established that Ryan has issues and cannot be considered a child rose outside of a difficult childhood.

I have seen other children that again do not listen to there parents there for some child do not listen to there parents. I observer, theorize and prove, there is no getting around it, it’s a fact.

Then there appears to be no reason for further debate, according to you.

I’ll start beating children immediately, thanks.

First of all I have not seen "treating the child with respect and talking to them throughout their entire development" ever working

Exactly. That’s why you can’t understand.

in a comparison to child that were spanked the non-spanked children seemed to immature, unempathetic and narcissistic

And you accuse me of generalizing statements?

I’m going out on a limb with an assumption – is it possible that a child who is continually spanked might lose their childhood altogether? Perhaps you are confusing immaturity and narcissi with the nature of being a happy child.

Second off you obviously have not read through this thread (ok so its long I’ll forgive you for not reading through it)… Third, Again you did not read the thread

If you were ever wrong of anything, you can add that.

OK – If this is not merely your opinion, I’m willing to hear your argument as to why it is considered unusual to not have impulses of violent behavior. Is everyone prone to exhibit violent behavior?

Everyone when angry has the impulse the scream, bash things, jump up and down what ever, basically revert to a animal like state, of course any reasonable adult can control this, you saying you don't have such a impulse?



Strawman.

That was a accurate example to me of what you were saying, perhaps I misinterpreted, then you would rephrase your original statement in greater detail?


I’m glad you agree with me – talking does work.

Well then we are half way to a conclusion, now if only I could get you to understand that spanking is valid.


I think it has already been established that Ryan has issues and cannot be considered a child rose outside of a difficult childhood.

Could you explain to me how he got these "issues" I mean his mother followed the books and went to the psychologist and everything.


Then there appears to be no reason for further debate, according to you. I’ll start beating children immediately, thanks.

Now we are all the way there, so we can stop debating now, all a little bit of advice, spanking is not betting a child, i would not advice you to hit your child out right, also advice you the spnak only after all else fails.


Exactly. That’s why you can’t understand.

Well if you would provide for me proven examples.


And you accuse me of generalizing statements?

I compared two groups of children, based of my observation I came to the conclusion that some children would have been better off spanked, I don't see in any way how that’s a generalization or a attempt to generalize that all children should be spanked.

*bump* http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/ponder.gif

Spanking is a good for correction. Studies have shown though, that after the first hit every hit after that is uncontrollable anger.

I'm here back in CA visiting my father for Xmas. Ryan now almost two years older then when I last saw him, he is now 6 years old, little has changed in his behavior. He screams constantly, he most have is way, he is given time outs and placed in his room constantly to little avail, if you tell him not to do something he immediately does it as he does not fear any consequences, he does not respect his parents and mocks them, did I mention he swears? Ryan's little sister is 2 and she of better temperament then Ryan! I'll keep your up dated over the years on Ryans progress.

So far this is clear proof to me that some children need to be spanked as other forms of discipline are a total failure on them.