Discipline for children

[laughing dog]

BTW, if you talk to spankers, many times, the intent is to create fear.

Then it should be easy for you to find one, just one, in this thread.

I don't need to - I've lived with spankers and I know some spankers. Spanking is a violent act that does not teach a child why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect a spanking to be an effective tool in discipline? Hmmmm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then it should be easy for you to find one, just one, in this thread.

I don't need to - I've lived with spankers and I know some spankers. Spanking is a violent act that does not teach a child why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect a spanking to be an effective tool in discipline? Hmmmm.

It can't be fear because the pain is so minor and fleeting. I have no idea why I hated being spanked. It sounds so lovely. Much better than a timeout. Get spanked, then play video games. Can't play 4-bit video games while sitting on the stairs.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then it should be easy for you to find one, just one, in this thread.

I don't need to - I've lived with spankers and I know some spankers. Spanking is a violent act that does not teach a child why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect a spanking to be an effective tool in discipline? Hmmmm.

I don't need to find any time-outers in this thread. I've lived with and known time-outers. It's a passive aggressive act used to put a child in their place and force obedience by depriving them of their freedom and emotionally and mentally abusing them. It doesn't teach them why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect time-outs to be an effective tool of discipline?

In case it's not obvious, what on earth makes you think that the spankers you've known are good spankers? Especially if, as you claim, they are spanking with the intent to create fear in their child?

What makes your personal anecdotes acceptable as overwhelming proof sufficient to end all discussion?

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't need to - I've lived with spankers and I know some spankers. Spanking is a violent act that does not teach a child why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect a spanking to be an effective tool in discipline? Hmmmm.

It can't be fear because the pain is so minor and fleeting. I have no idea why I hated being spanked. It sounds so lovely. Much better than a timeout. Get spanked, then play video games. Can't play 4-bit video games while sitting on the stairs.

Yes, hmm. Your personal experience is of course perfectly extensible to every other situation. Especially given that you've already indicated that your mother would hit you just because she was angry. Just because you were abused and spanking was misused in your household doesn't mean that all spankings are the same. Mine certainly weren't.

I'd like you to consider the situation in this discussion.

You have taken the stance that because your personal experience was bad, then ALL experiences must be bad, and spanking must not be allowed ever. You seem to be concluding that anyone who has experienced something different is delusional or lying or both.

I have taken the stance that my experience was not bad, and my outcome was good. I have freely admitted that the possibility for abuse exists and that abuse is bad, but that not all spanking is abuse. I allow for the existence of a continuum.

Which of those is the more rational conclusion, based on more reasoned evaluation of information?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't need to - I've lived with spankers and I know some spankers. Spanking is a violent act that does not teach a child why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect a spanking to be an effective tool in discipline? Hmmmm.

I don't need to find any time-outers in this thread. I've lived with and known time-outers. It's a passive aggressive act used to put a child in their place and force obedience by depriving them of their freedom and emotionally and mentally abusing them. It doesn't teach them why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect time-outs to be an effective tool of discipline?

Given your rhetoric about depriving children of their freedom, emotionally and mentally abusing them, mental anguish and locking children in their rooms, I strongly suspect you either knew sadists or are making stuff up.

In case it's not obvious, what on earth makes you think that the spankers you've known are good spankers? Especially if, as you claim, they are spanking with the intent to create fear in their child?

What is obvious is that you evaded the question in my response. So, I will repeat it - Spanking does not teach a child why their actions were wrong, so why does any rational person expect spanking to be an effective tool in discipline?

What makes your personal anecdotes acceptable as overwhelming proof sufficient to end all discussion?

I have no idea where all of your straw men come from.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't need to find any time-outers in this thread. I've lived with and known time-outers. It's a passive aggressive act used to put a child in their place and force obedience by depriving them of their freedom and emotionally and mentally abusing them. It doesn't teach them why a deed is wrong. So why would any rational person expect time-outs to be an effective tool of discipline?

Given your rhetoric about depriving children of their freedom, emotionally and mentally abusing them, mental anguish and locking children in their rooms, I strongly suspect you either knew sadists or are making stuff up.

In case it's not obvious, what on earth makes you think that the spankers you've known are good spankers? Especially if, as you claim, they are spanking with the intent to create fear in their child?

What is obvious is that you evaded the question in my response. So, I will repeat it - Spanking does not teach a child why their actions were wrong, so why does any rational person expect spanking to be an effective tool in discipline?

What makes your personal anecdotes acceptable as overwhelming proof sufficient to end all discussion?

I have no idea where all of your straw men come from.

Kids have good cause-effect senses. Punish, in this case I mean spank, a child within one or two seconds of her misdeed and the child will'learn to associate act (misdeed) with punishment (spanking) and she will, depending on her current stage of development associate the pair strong as suggestion authority does not want her to do that. Whether the act is taken as withdrawal of love or some other sign or just as "that hurts and I don't want that to happen again" or something else she has 'learned'. Now if what she was doing was good fun, more fun than the spanking was bad fun she will continue to do the act. Parent had better be ready for that eventuality. The parent must be prepared to punish again and again until it becomes clear to her that she will not be allowed to act in that way without punishment.

So any way one looks at it any form of punishment - whether it be room sending, corner standing, toy withdrawal, spanking, torture - requires repeated doses to each event if one wishes to extinguish or elicit appropriate behavior from the punished. Not a really good way for getting one to learn a class of behaviors at the very least. Use FBI book techniques. That way one can engage child's intellect in bring the child to understand best behaviors from authority.

 

[Emily Lake]

Spanking does not teach a child why their actions were wrong, so why does any rational person expect spanking to be an effective tool in discipline?

Sending a child to their room doesn't teach them why their actions were wrong either. Nor does taking away their toys or any other form of discipline.

Each of those things teaches the child that their action is unacceptable. But none of them teaches why it is unacceptable. The why, in each and every case, must be provided separately. Spanking is no different in that respect from time-outs. Time-outs don't magically provide a reason, and a child is unlikley to just discern a reason on their own, unprompted.

You have a very stilted and biased approach to this. You keep approaching the entire process as if spanking is a thing in isolation, where a child is beat mercilessly, experiencing significant amounts of pain, and is given no reasoning or explanation... but when non-physical means of punishment are discussed, then you assume small steps, with very light or ramping approaches, with full explanations and discussion.

Why do you assume that non-physical approaches to discipline occur as part of an entire suite encompassing many aspects of teaching, but spanking occurs in isolation with no other efforts on the part of the parent?

Everyone in this thread who has not been anti-spanking has stressed the importance of a well-reasoned, thoughtful, and caring approach that incorporates explanations and love as well as spankings.

 

[laughing dog]

Spanking does not teach a child why their actions were wrong, so why does any rational person expect spanking to be an effective tool in discipline?

Sending a child to their room doesn't teach them why their actions were wrong either. Nor does taking away their toys or any other form of discipline.

One does not simply tell a child to go for a time out. Depending on the mental state of the child, one isolates the child and tries to explain why their action is unacceptable. The time out serves a multitude of purposes - it separates the child from the sphere of the unacceptable behavior, gives them a quiet, safe place to calm down and to perhaps reflect on what they did and what they were told. Spanking does none of that.

Each of those things teaches the child that their action is unacceptable. But none of them teaches why it is unacceptable. The why, in each and every case, must be provided separately. Spanking is no different in that respect from time-outs. Time-outs don't magically provide a reason, and a child is unlikley to just discern a reason on their own, unprompted.

Spanking is different because it is violent.

You have a very stilted and biased approach to this. You keep approaching the entire process as if spanking is a thing in isolation, where a child is beat mercilessly, experiencing significant amounts of pain, and is given no reasoning or explanation... but when non-physical means of punishment are discussed, then you assume small steps, with very light or ramping approaches, with full explanations and discussion.

I keep wondering where these ridiculous and ironic straw men come from.

If one is performing what you call "small step with very light or ramping approaches with full explanations and discussions", what exactly is the point of the spanking other than to teach children that violence is an acceptable form of discipline (but only for children, not adults or pets)?

Why do you assume that non-physical approaches to discipline occur as part of an entire suite encompassing many aspects of teaching, but spanking occurs in isolation with no other efforts on the part of the parent?

Everyone in this thread who has not been anti-spanking has stressed the importance of a well-reasoned, thoughtful, and caring approach that incorporates explanations and love as well as spankings.

See above.

 

[Emily Lake]

Spanking is different because it is violent.

So are toy guns, football, almost all contact sports, and a humongous number of activities that humans engage in.

Violence is not by itself something abhorrent. Are you a pacifist?

I also notice that you dodge the question. Why do you assume that in the case of non-physical discipline, explanations and reasons will be provided... but in the case of spanking they will not be?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It can't be fear because the pain is so minor and fleeting. I have no idea why I hated being spanked. It sounds so lovely. Much better than a timeout. Get spanked, then play video games. Can't play 4-bit video games while sitting on the stairs.

I'd like you to consider the situation in this discussion.

You have taken the stance that because your personal experience was bad, then ALL experiences must be bad...

You know, you should quote me instead of make stuff up and attribute it to me.

...and spanking must not be allowed ever. You seem to be concluding that anyone who has experienced something different is delusional or lying or both.

This is why strawman arguments are so wonderful. Much easier to burn. Please come back to me once you want to discuss what I have actually stated.

 

[laughing dog]

Spanking is different because it is violent.

So are toy guns, football, almost all contact sports, and a humongous number of activities that humans engage in.

And the point of this is..."

Violence is not by itself something abhorrent. Are you a pacifist?

Jesus Christ, violence in a game or in war is not necessarily abhorrent, but it has no place in disciplining children.

I also notice that you dodge the question. Why do you assume that in the case of non-physical discipline, explanations and reasons will be provided... but in the case of spanking they will not be?

I didn't dodge the question. Try reading a response with some comprehension. I said it was a straw man. Which means I don't.

Speaking of dodging questions, how about answering
If one is performing what you call "small step with very light or ramping approaches with full explanations and discussions", what exactly is the point of the spanking other than to teach children that violence is an acceptable form of discipline (but only for children, not adults or pets)?

 

[fromderinside]

what exactly is the point of the spanking other than to teach children that violence is an acceptable form of discipline (but only for children, not adults or pets)?

The point of authoritarian corporal punishment is to disrupt ongoing behavior. After organisms identify, specify, and internalize, they generalize. The practical result, the 'goal' of spanking is not to teach spanking is permitted with smaller, less defensible, beings. It is to initiates into the human group that humans are violent and that those in authority are permitted to provide for such systems and measures.

One needs to know that spanking isn't the bad thing here. What is wrong is that such behaviors are not sanctioned by affirmative measures flowed down from authorities such as being a good parent entailing certain acceptable motivations in their children through example and custom. Working together to enable abilities is usually a good place to start.

 

[Juma]

what exactly is the point of the spanking other than to teach children that violence is an acceptable form of discipline (but only for children, not adults or pets)?

The point of authoritarian corporal punishment is to disrupt ongoing behavior. After organisms identify, specify, and internalize, they generalize. The practical result, the 'goal' of spanking is not to teach spanking is permitted with smaller, less defensible, beings. It is to initiates into the human group that humans are violent and that those in authority are permitted to provide for such systems and measures.

Yes? That is exactly what laughing dog wrote. ( except the distinction between children and adults)

 

[Playball40]

One thing I've noticed in this thread is that no distinction is being made to the age and development of the child. Just for the record, "time out" is equally as ineffective as "spanking" on a toddler and most preschoolers. Distraction is what should be used and POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT when expected behavior is observed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One thing I've noticed in this thread is that no distinction is being made to the age and development of the child. Just for the record, "time out" is equally as ineffective as "spanking" on a toddler and most preschoolers.

Totally! I like using chloroform myself.

Distraction is what should be used and POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT when expected behavior is observed.

I prefer negative reinforcement, just to confuse people I tell that to.

 

[Emily Lake]

One thing I've noticed in this thread is that no distinction is being made to the age and development of the child. Just for the record, "time out" is equally as ineffective as "spanking" on a toddler and most preschoolers. Distraction is what should be used and POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT when expected behavior is observed.

Good point. Different approaches are appropriate for different ages, as well as for different personality types. Some children will never need anything more than an expression of disappointment from their parents, and a time out. Others need something more extreme. The age of the child, the willfulness of the child, and what the child values all come into play.

 

[Playball40]

One thing I've noticed in this thread is that no distinction is being made to the age and development of the child. Just for the record, "time out" is equally as ineffective as "spanking" on a toddler and most preschoolers. Distraction is what should be used and POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT when expected behavior is observed.

Good point. Different approaches are appropriate for different ages, as well as for different personality types. Some children will never need anything more than an expression of disappointment from their parents, and a time out. Others need something more extreme. The age of the child, the willfulness of the child, and what the child values all come into play.

Children younger than 2 don't even have a sense of "self" yet, so punishing a child that age for 'taking a toy' or 'hitting' another child is pointless. They haven't even developed empathy yet and don't understand what they did "wrong". Children bite at that age to communicate, not to be mean (also to soothe teething). Point is, biting a child back is just stupid. Would you bite a child for wetting their diaper or spilling some food?

 

[fromderinside]

The point of authoritarian corporal punishment is to disrupt ongoing behavior. After organisms identify, specify, and internalize, they generalize. The practical result, the 'goal' of spanking is not to teach spanking is permitted with smaller, less defensible, beings. It is to initiates into the human group that humans are violent and that those in authority are permitted to provide for such systems and measures.

Yes? That is exactly what laughing dog wrote. ( except the distinction between children and adults)

So laughing dog wrote social systems depend on authority and authorities in social systems are chartered to organize punishment to maintain social structure?

 

[laughing dog]

One thing I've noticed in this thread is that no distinction is being made to the age and development of the child. Just for the record, "time out" is equally as ineffective as "spanking" on a toddler and most preschoolers. Distraction is what should be used and POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT when expected behavior is observed.

Time out is a form of distraction.

 

[Toni]

One thing I've noticed in this thread is that no distinction is being made to the age and development of the child. Just for the record, "time out" is equally as ineffective as "spanking" on a toddler and most preschoolers. Distraction is what should be used and POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT when expected behavior is observed.

Sure, it's best to avoid conditions which might produce melt downs and tantrums in toddlers. I was pretty good at this but once in a while, someone had an unanticipated meltdown or one which was due to unavoidable circumstances (who knew son would become so attached to the firetruck he ignored the day before and melt down when I put it away in the closet? Two year olds are not rational in the same way most adults use the term. ). I found removing the child from the situation or simply to a quiet place to allow the child to calm down was far more effective than trying to 'distract' the child. Sometimes with rocking, soothing, sometimes just quiet. Some would term this 'time out' but I never used that term with my kids myself.

Here's the thing: our job as parents isn't to make certain that the road of life is always smooth and trouble free, with no bumps or bruises along the way. That's an impossible task and performing it very well actually cripples the child and makes the child unable to tolerate or overcome or even flourish in the face of adversity. Let's face it: we all face some adversity. Our first shot at handling it should not come our freshman year of college. And trust me: there exist parents who would prevent even that trauma from harming their little darlings.

Our job is to teach our children to handle life's little bumps and bruises and learn from them so that they will be able to handle what life throws at them, and even flourish in the face of adversity. This is called resilience. It is a good thing. Essential, actually.

It is also our job to teach children that their needs are not the only ones which exist and not the ones which are most important most of the time, that it is highly desirable to be able to look at the world from the point of view of other people, to do the best job we can possible, to accept ourselves while striving to be better people, to accept other people without necessarily taking their bullshit or throwing out more bullshit of our own. That honesty and kindness are essential. To try to leave the world a better place when we leave it, starting with our rooms and first apartments.. and so on.