Spanking

[angelatc]

I call BS. I have 3 kids and they aren't spanked- ages 3-12. They are incredibly polite, smart, and independent children. Their actions aren't dictated by "fear" of what will happen if they don't comply, their actions are a result of the examples my husband and I have set for them.

Nonsense. Your kids are brats if you don't spank them. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean they aren't.

3 year olds aren't supposed to be independent.

 

[angelatc]

I agree. I have 3 kids and while it's harder to think of a way to deal with them than it is to just hit them it can be done. I find it ironic that freedom lovers who would have a really hard time w/a cop hitting someone who wasn't following the rules are okay with big grown ups hitting little children for the same reason. .

Children belong to the parents. People do not belong to the state.

 

[pinkmandy]

And your kids are going to be undisciplined brats. Sadly, they'll probably end up ruling over mine, who know how to communicate like grown ups.

Hell, we can't reason with Democrats or Republicans? Why on earth do you think it's possible to reason with a 2 year old who is intent on poking her baby sister in the eye?

Seriously, F you. You don't know me or my children. I've taken a great deal of time and patience to raise my children well, even foregoing a career to homeschool them. If you lack the mental ability to find a way to discipline your unruly child without hitting him/her then that's sad. You're supposed to be the parent, setting the example.

If hitting is how grown ups communicate then I want no part of that for my kids. Instead they have learned to reason and use more advanced forms of communication than beating someone who won't do what they say. We're aiming for something beyond caveman mentality in our home.

 

[pinkmandy]

Nonsense. Your kids are brats if you don't spank them. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean they aren't.

3 year olds aren't supposed to be independent.

Now I feel sorry for you and your children. So you HAVE to hit them. You have no choice. It's for their own good! Send me your address and I'll send you some parenting books. There are usually classes locally as well.

Everywhere I go w/my kids I get comments on how well behaved they are. They open doors for people, help the elderly, always say please and thank you. And I've never had to hit them to get them to comply. I merely set the example, gave them my expectations and praise them for their good behavior. It's more effective than beating them for bad behavior. Well, the 3 yo is still learning these things but is hardly unruly for her age.

 

[angelatc]

It is teaching (though a rights violation, IMO), and teaches the child to fear whatever it was that they did, or can be used to emphasize a point, attaching memorable fear to the lesson so it isn't forgotten.

I don't give a rats ass how it works, as long as it does.

My friend had a kid that bit. (Needless to say that isn't something she picked up from her parents.) My freind spent 3 years trying to curb the behavior, and it really only stopped because another kid finally bit her back. (And my friend had the chitzpah to be upset that her kid got bit! Hrumph.)

My kid decided to bite. I swatted him on the butt, stuck him in his room and that was the end of that.

 

[angelatc]

Now I feel sorry for you and your children. So you HAVE to hit them. You have no choice. It's for their own good! Send me your address and I'll send you some parenting books. There are usually classes locally as well.

Everywhere I go w/my kids I get comments on how well behaved they are. They open doors for people, help the elderly, always say please and thank you. And I've never had to hit them to get them to comply. I merely set the example, gave them my expectations and praise them for their good behavior. It's more effective than beating them for bad behavior. Well, the 3 yo is still learning these things but is hardly unruly for her age.

I didn't HAVE to hit them. I chose to spank them because I had better things to do than negotiate with children.

I don't care about your kids. Or your stupid liberal bullshit books. If you need other "experts" to tell you how to raise your kids, then that simply speaks volumes. My grandmother managed to raise 9 fully functioning adults without reading a single book or attending a single class. It's only this new wave psychobabble crap that you're suggesting that has weakened the family unit and created the parental authority crisis.

My kids are past the age of spanking now.

I am sure your kids are well behaved and absolutely the smartest kids on their block. Every parent of unspanked kids say the same thing.

It's perfection breeding absolute perfection!

 

[angelatc]

Seriously, F you. You don't know me or my children. I've taken a great deal of time and patience to raise my children well, even foregoing a career to homeschool them. If you lack the mental ability to find a way to discipline your unruly child without hitting him/her then that's sad. You're supposed to be the parent, setting the example.

If hitting is how grown ups communicate then I want no part of that for my kids. Instead they have learned to reason and use more advanced forms of communication than beating someone who won't do what they say. We're aiming for something beyond caveman mentality in our home.

Yes, you're a martyr and your kids are alway going to be smarter and better behaved than everybodys. I already knew that, because that's what parents who don't spank say.

Setting the example is only one aspect of being that parent.

 

[angelatc]

If hitting is how grown ups communicate then I want no part of that for my kids. Instead they have learned to reason and use more advanced forms of communication than beating someone who won't do what they say. We're aiming for something beyond caveman mentality in our home.

I know you are, sweetie.

We preferred to stick with the traditional value system that made us and our kids strong. 50 years ago, everybody spanked. Now only about half do, and yet kids are, by all accounts I've read, far more aggressive than they used to be.

 

[Mini-Me]

dfjsaklfkldsjalkfakfldjkaljfkljk...odd double post. Nixing the first one.

 

[Mini-Me]

And your kids are going to be undisciplined brats. Sadly, they'll probably end up ruling over mine, who know how to communicate like grown ups.

Hell, we can't reason with Democrats or Republicans? Why on earth do you think it's possible to reason with a 2 year old who is intent on poking her baby sister in the eye?

That top comment about pinkmandy's kids was entirely out of line. It seems as though someone wasn't spanked enough...or perhaps someone should have been raised using other methods so she'd act less...bratty? Rude? Presumptuous? Based on pinkmandy's description, her kids may very well be more well-adjusted and able to communicate like grown-ups than you are yourself.

 

[Kludge]

I've been thinking about this all wrong. Spanking a child is protection from the alternative. A kid can't realize their mortality unless they challenge it. Hitting a child running to the road is protection from death. I ought to go with my gut instinct more... Hitting a kid and asking something similar to "How would you like it if I did that to you?" teaches them to respect each other.

 

[angelatc]

That top comment about pinkmandy's kids was entirely out of line. It seems as though someone wasn't spanked enough...or perhaps someone should have been raised using other methods so she'd act less...bratty? Rude? Presumptuous? Based on pinkmandy's description, her kids may very well be more well-adjusted and able to communicate like grown-ups than you are yourself.

They might be. I have no interest in learning the Dale Carnegie methodology. That's why I am not a precinct leader. I don't like most people all that much, and could give a rat's ass about communicating non-confrontation-ally.

I am, however, 45 years old and far past the concept that my Daddy and Mommy must somehow to blame for my peculiarities.

And it doesn't change the fact that kids who aren't spanked are always insufferable brats.

 

[angelatc]

That top comment about pinkmandy's kids was entirely out of line. It seems as though someone wasn't spanked enough...or perhaps someone should have been raised using other methods so she'd act less...bratty? Rude? Presumptuous? Based on pinkmandy's description, her kids may very well be more well-adjusted and able to communicate like grown-ups than you are yourself.

I am sure that pinkmandy's description is entirely unbiased.

 

[Mini-Me]

They might be. I have no interest in learning the Dale Carnegie methodology. That's why I am not a precinct leader. I don't like most people all that much, and could give a rat's ass about communicating non-confrontation-ally.

Your previous comment led me to believe that you valued the ability to communicate as grown-ups:

Sadly, they'll probably end up ruling over mine, who know how to communicate like grown ups.

I am, however, 45 years old and far past the concept that my Daddy and Mommy must somehow to blame for my peculiarities.

And it doesn't change the fact that kids who aren't spanked are always insufferable brats.

The fact? Always? Well, that settles it. Your generalities from on high have certainly convinced me of the superior logic behind your methods.

 

[Mini-Me]

I am sure that pinkmandy's description is entirely unbiased.

Point taken, but she's citing other people's spoken opinions of her kids. It's possible that they're all mistaken, or perhaps she's omitting complaints she's gotten from other adults (which would constitute bias). She could also be lying, I suppose. However, assuming she's not lying, not just every kid is thoughtful enough to open doors for people. Sure, it's not a foolproof litmus test, but it's certainly enough evidence to give the benefit of the doubt until further notice...rather than desperately trying to insist that her kids must really be brats.

As far as bias goes, you certainly seem to have an irrational bent against unspanked kids and their parents. By acting so adamant that spanking is such an absolute necessity (lest there be mayhem) and closing the door to all debate, it honestly seems to me as though you're trying to drown out the doubts you have about your own method.

 

[Dr.3D]

(edited by pinkmandy) Since when is a slap on the ass "physical harm"? It causes the suspect no damage whatsoever and helps them understand the results of ignoring the authority their local police should have over them.

Edited. Isn't that kind of the same thing?

Just playing devil's advocate. Interesting conversation.

Well, if police didn't give tickets, would people stop parking illegally? If police didn't give tickets, would people stop speeding? If police didn't give tickets, would people stop running red lights, and stop signs?

If just talking to people would make them stop doing the things they are not supposed to do, police wouldn't be writing tickets.

People generally learn best by having something adverse to what they want happen to them when they do something they shouldn't be doing. If you hit your finger with a hammer, would you avoid doing it again if you felt no pain and your finger was not damaged in the process? The reason you don't hit your finger with a hammer is because it hurts and you want to avoid the pain and damage to your finger. The same holds true when you touch something hot and burn yourself. The results of doing such a thing deters you from doing it again.

If people wait and let their children get away with anything they want, the children usually don't understand there is any penalty for doing something wrong. If this is allowed to go on long enough, even spanking the child will not help. A child will grow past a certain age where anything you do to deter them from doing things that are decremental to themselves or others will have little affect on them.

Discipline must be started as early as possible and continue with consistency for a length of time before a mindset will take place and the child will understand there are penalties for inappropriate behavior.

 

[Time for Change]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am hesitant to point out the bratty kid to the parents, because it is none of my business, no matter how annoying the little shits are (and how blind the parents happen to be).
If the parent accepts the kid's behavior as "Normal"...well...nothing can be said about the kid to a person who sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way they are acting.

That said, of course there will be only praise from people that see good things, because the people who notice the less than appropriate keep their mouth shut.

 

[Mini-Me]

Well, if police didn't give tickets, would people stop parking illegally? If police didn't give tickets, would people stop speeding? If police didn't give tickets, would people stop running red lights, and stop signs?

If just talking to people would make them stop doing the things they are not supposed to do, police wouldn't be writing tickets.

Do you really think that if cops did not give tickets for running red lights, you would personally start running them every chance you had? If so, that says a lot more about who you are and what garners your respect in particular (brute force and intimidation) than it does about the general necessity of tickets. Even though I have a low opinion of most people's inner morality, most people are nevertheless perfectly willing to recognize the necessity of playing nice on a personal level. Furthermore, the natural consequences of running red lights are a pretty big deterrent by themselves (because they can include a horrible, fiery death). It seems to me like we have the following kinds of people:

• People who can be reasoned with, who will not run red lights simply because they understand how doing so makes it dangerous for themselves and everyone else on the road. (People really do tend to play nice in most situations.)
• People who don't really care about that, but who realize the danger of running red lights.
• Flaming assholes who will run red lights, come hell or high water
• Flaming assholes who would run red lights but don't out of fear for teh cops' AUTHORITAAHHH

Frankly, I think people in the first two categories greatly outnumber those in the last two...and odds are, if you're enough of a flaming asshole to run red lights without sparing a thought for anyone else, you're probably a big enough jerk that you'll do it anyway, despite the risk of punishment. Except in cases where running a red light is against the law but not particularly dangerous (i.e. nobody else is around whatsoever, which mitigates the "flaming asshole" thing), I imagine the last group of people is pretty sparsely populated.

Due to the existence of people who run red lights anyway, it's obvious that punishment and threat of punishment do not work for everyone. Similarly, the existence of people who would NOT run red lights means that punishment and threat of punishment are not necessary for the cooperation of those people.

The situation is a little different for rules like speed limits though. Fear of tickets really does force people to obey speed limits (or make sure they don't exceed them TOO much) more than logical argument or persuasion. However, that's mainly because so many people legitimately disagree with the reasoned argument behind speed limits in the first place, not because they simply cannot be reasoned with as human beings. Logical arguments in favor of speed limits in general are not ironclad, and logical arguments in favor of unfairly low speed limits are about as solid as Swiss cheese. It's no wonder so few people really respect them...they're simply not that respectable.

The bottom line here is: Sometimes you must correct the behavior of someone who cannot be reasoned with, and that's where discipline is necessary. However, persuasion (with genuine moral authority backing it) works perfectly well on almost all people some of the time, and it even works very well on some people almost all of the time.

People generally learn best by having something adverse to what they want happen to them when they do something they shouldn't be doing. If you hit your finger with a hammer, would you avoid doing it again if you felt no pain and your finger was not damaged in the process? The reason you don't hit your finger with a hammer is because it hurts and you want to avoid the pain and damage to your finger. The same holds true when you touch something hot and burn yourself. The results of doing such a thing deters you from doing it again.

If people wait and let their children get away with anything they want, the children usually don't understand there is any penalty for doing something wrong. If this is allowed to go on long enough, even spanking the child will not help. A child will grow past a certain age where anything you do to deter them from doing things that are decremental to themselves or others will have little affect on them.

Discipline must be started as early as possible and continue with consistency for a length of time before a mindset will take place and the child will understand there are penalties for inappropriate behavior.

I can't really find fault with the rest of this. Discipline is certainly necessary for raising good kids. When your kids get out of line, discipline gets them under control, and it's important to make sure they feel the just consequences of any transgressions. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that parents should let their kids run wild and turn a blind eye to their brattiness. However, while discipline is necessary to raise truly good kids, it's still not sufficient, because discipline by itself only affects outward behavior, and it's not enough to make your kids moral on the inside (which is really the true goal). In the long run, the difference between good people and functional, well-behaved assholes is moral understanding.

Of course, when I say that discipline is necessary, I'm not referring to spankings in particular. I can see situations where they make sense, but I think there are better alternatives for most occasions.

 

[Roxi]

I have never spanked my daughter because.... 1. I respect her, 2. Hitting is wrong, no matter who you are hitting, you wouldn't hit your spouse for doing something wrong would you? 3. It infringes on her personal space. 3. I don't want to teach her that hitting is the way to get people to behave correctly.

however, i have no right to tell anyone else how to parent their child.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Do you really think that if cops did not give tickets for running red lights, you would personally start running them every chance you had? If so, that says a lot more about who you are and what garners your respect in particular (brute force and intimidation) than it does about the general necessity of tickets. Even though I have a low opinion of most people's inner morality, most people are nevertheless perfectly willing to recognize the necessity of playing nice on a personal level....[and so on].

Clearly you have never been to Cincinnati