Discipline for children

[prideandfall]

Physical punishment is not abuse. Or shouldn't be. My parents did not spank me when they were angry. Never.

and if your boyfriend/girlfriend only hit you when they were not angry, that would be OK with you?

explain to me how something which would be called physical assault in a heartbeat in ANY other facet of human existence somehow magically isn't when the victim is a child.

That enough of an 'anecdote'?

no, it isn't.
just because some women in africa think female circumcision is OK or some women in saudi arabia think the way that culture treats women is OK doesn't mean that there can ever be enough anecdotes to make it OK.

here's a question for you:
if a man fell asleep on a beach, and while sleeping got an erection, and someone took a picture of that erection and posted it online as "art", and then the man tracked down the person who took the picture demanding to have the picture taken down, and the photographer proceeded to have heavily armed guards bend the man over a table and pull his pants down and hit him repeatedly with a wooden spoon to teach him a lesson about keeping his temper... would you find this completely acceptable?

 

[credoconsolans]

and if your boyfriend/girlfriend only hit you when they were not angry, that would be OK with you?

I'm not a child who needs discipline. You do know the difference between adults and children, right?

explain to me how something which would be called physical assault in a heartbeat in ANY other facet of human existence somehow magically isn't when the victim is a child.

Because a child isn't an adult. I think that's obvious. Guess we should just let toddlers run into traffic because grabbing them and hauling them back against their will is 'assault' as well.

That enough of an 'anecdote'?

no, it isn't.
just because some women in africa think female circumcision is OK or some women in saudi arabia think the way that culture treats women is OK doesn't mean that there can ever be enough anecdotes to make it OK.

Sorry, but no. The poster said being spanked caused brain and nervous system damage and made the spankee suffer physically and psychologically.

In order to make such a claim, that would mean almost everyone throughout history was brain-damaged.

Are you willing to say that?

 

[prideandfall]

I'm not a child who needs discipline. You do know the difference between adults and children, right?

so, what is saying is that either:
A. children inherently only understand being physically assaulted and no other means of communication with their soft heads is possible, or
B. children are inherently by their very nature undeserving of not being physically assaulted

which one of those two is it, i'm just curious.

Because a child isn't an adult. I think that's obvious. Guess we should just let toddlers run into traffic because grabbing them and hauling them back against their will is 'assault' as well.

oh, so now it's straw man arguments on top of hypocrisy, nice!

grabbing someone's arm to pull them out of traffic isn't illegal and isn't assault. nor is tackling someone to get them out of the way of a moving vehicle, nor is physically restraining someone who is acting as a danger to themselves, to others, or to property.

In order to make such a claim, that would mean almost everyone throughout history was brain-damaged.
Are you willing to say that?

absolutely - though i wouldn't say it was just because of spanking. the human race is chalk full of slobbering retards, saying almost everyone throughout history was brain damaged sounds just about right to me.

 

[credoconsolans]

so, what is saying is that either:
A. children inherently only understand being physically assaulted and no other means of communication with their soft heads is possible, or
B. children are inherently by their very nature undeserving of not being physically assaulted

It is saying children are not adults. They don't have the same responsibilities and expectations as adults because they don't have the brains to. Again, obvious.

Because a child isn't an adult. I think that's obvious. Guess we should just let toddlers run into traffic because grabbing them and hauling them back against their will is 'assault' as well.

oh, so now it's straw man arguments on top of hypocrisy, nice!

grabbing someone's arm to pull them out of traffic isn't illegal and isn't assault. nor is tackling someone to get them out of the way of a moving vehicle, nor is physically restraining someone who is acting as a danger to themselves, to others, or to property.

Says who? The person trying to run might be thinking something completely different. Who are you to stop them without their permission? Especially if the kid kicks and screams and fights to be released? I can't see how you can say that is anything but assault.

In order to make such a claim, that would mean almost everyone throughout history was brain-damaged.
Are you willing to say that?

absolutely - though i wouldn't say it was just because of spanking. the human race is chalk full of slobbering retards, saying almost everyone throughout history was brain damaged sounds just about right to me.

Well, then there you go. Almost everyone from our Founding Fathers to the Great Generation to your great grandparents were all retards.

 

[Frikki]

I'm not a child...

You can't use your words when you are frustraited and the smartest thing you can come up with is lashing out with violence. This is what a child does. An adult reasons.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

As someone else posted, sometimes kids don't respond to anything else. A 'time out' would have meant nothing to me. I didn't mind being alone in a room by myself. Guess that punishment was invented by social butterfly people who think being alone is a punishment.

So you're saying that time-outs aren't effective because they weren't effective on you, specifically?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

You'll never teach a child self discipline by forcing your opinion about their behaviour on them.

Discipline and a measured approach to the world is a mental acquisition, not operant conditioning.

"It never hurt me." Is demonstrably untrue. Every person who had said that to me IRL, and those on here, has advocated FOR violence. And not just in the realm of child discipline. The attitude generalises to other situations and that speaks for itself.

I speak from a position of deep shame, and my own experience. My parents were people who lost it, and lashed out in anger. I did the same to my own son by reflex, until I figured out that it was wrong and overcame my conditioning. My sisters never did figure it out. You spread the acceptance of violence by using violence. Kids learn by example.

If we want them to use their brains to figure out what is right then we can't just impose it from on high. They're not pets.

 

[RavenSky]

You are not responsible for making some idiot at work into a citizen who respects others and the norms of society.

Children need discipline to learn what is acceptable in the society.

children need to be taught what is acceptable in society - that is light years away from 'discipline', much less using 'discipline' as a euphemism for physical violence.

Independent minded children that will not learn that way will need more severe discipline, maybe even spanking.

this is utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine.

Yeah, I understand that is your opinion. I could call it utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine but my parents taught to have more respect for the fact that others have a right to their opinions even if I disagreed, very occasionally with a firm hand to my little rump.

Would you agree that people have the right to their own opinion that rape was acceptable, or slapping one's wife is a private matter?

No?

Then why should hitting a child be a matter of personal preference?

 

[RavenSky]

Dancer's don't get "participation trophies" so I don't know how pervasive this practice is. Do you have examples of older, more experienced sports players receiving "participation trophies"?

In Primary school, at sports carnivals, all kids get a participation ribbon, with the place getters getting ribbons for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. The really young kids don't get ribbons, but they do all get a sticker that says 'I ran a race' or 'I swam in the pool'.

To me this doesn't give anything for the kid to really strive for. 'Oh, it doesn't matter if I don't place, I will get a ribbon anyway.'

When I was in school the only reason I got a ribbon for 3rd was because there were three swimmers in the race. I didn't feel proud of that accomplishment, because I still knew that I had come last.

You are saying opposite things here. On the one hand, you say you didn't feel any sense of accomplishment whe you won the third place ribbon because you were smart and realized that with only three people in the race, third place didn't mean anything.

Yet, on the other hand, you said that having participation ribbons didn't give anyone anything to strive for. You don't think they are smart enough to know that there in a race with 20 kids, there is a big difference between "participation" vs first, second or third place?

I've seen good arguments on both sides of this particular question, and don't have a strong opinion either way though.

 

[RavenSky]

Because a child isn't an adult. I think that's obvious. Guess we should just let toddlers run into traffic because grabbing them and hauling them back against their will is 'assault' as well.

grabbing someone's arm to pull them out of traffic isn't illegal and isn't assault. nor is tackling someone to get them out of the way of a moving vehicle, nor is physically restraining someone who is acting as a danger to themselves, to others, or to property.

Says who? The person trying to run might be thinking something completely different. Who are you to stop them without their permission? Especially if the kid kicks and screams and fights to be released? I can't see how you can say that is anything but assault.

This really is an absurd argument. I suppose in our lawsuit-happy worl we probably could find someone who would get angry because a good Samaritan pulled them out of the path of an oncoming truck, but no one in their right mind would agree that saving the man's life was an assault. Comparing this to hitting someone (adult or ridiculous a ridiculous argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are not responsible for making some idiot at work into a citizen who respects others and the norms of society.

Children need discipline to learn what is acceptable in the society.

children need to be taught what is acceptable in society - that is light years away from 'discipline', much less using 'discipline' as a euphemism for physical violence.

Independent minded children that will not learn that way will need more severe discipline, maybe even spanking.

this is utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine.

Yeah, I understand that is your opinion. I could call it utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine but my parents taught to have more respect for the fact that others have a right to their opinions even if I disagreed, very occasionally with a firm hand to my little rump.

Would you agree that people have the right to their own opinion that rape was acceptable, or slapping one's wife is a private matter?

No?

Certainly they have the right to such opinions. Acting on them is a different matter. I wouldn't want to see thought crime legislation enacted.

Then why should hitting a child be a matter of personal preference?

It seems that you are assuming a beating that causes bodily harm.

Assume a real independent four or five year old child who does not pay any attention to discussions, scoldings, or time outs who is throwing rocks, or dog shit at passers-by, or harassing and teasing the neighbor's little daughter to tears, throwing cats around by their tail, etc. How do you convince them that such things are not acceptable. After trying non-physical correction and failing, is a slap on their rump excessive?

Children at such an age do not have the mental capacity of reason so they can not be reasoned with. They understand what they want, reward, and punishment but if the punishment of "time out" doesn't bother them then there is no punishment. The point in rearing a child should be to produce an adult who has respect for others and the ability to understand and respect the mores of the society. This is established very early in a human's life. By the pre-teen years, their personality is pretty much set.

However, anyone who does not regret having to punish a child shouldn't have children. But the responsibility of raising a child to respect others should be taken seriously.

 

[RavenSky]

You are not responsible for making some idiot at work into a citizen who respects others and the norms of society.

Children need discipline to learn what is acceptable in the society.

children need to be taught what is acceptable in society - that is light years away from 'discipline', much less using 'discipline' as a euphemism for physical violence.

Independent minded children that will not learn that way will need more severe discipline, maybe even spanking.

this is utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine.

Yeah, I understand that is your opinion. I could call it utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine but my parents taught to have more respect for the fact that others have a right to their opinions even if I disagreed, very occasionally with a firm hand to my little rump.

Would you agree that people have the right to their own opinion that rape was acceptable, or slapping one's wife is a private matter?

No?

Certainly they have the right to such opinions. Acting on them is a different matter. I wouldn't want to see thought crime legislation enacted.

fair enough. People can *think* about hitting/spanking their children, just not act on that thought

Then why should hitting a child be a matter of personal preference?

It seems that you are assuming a beating that causes bodily harm.

I am assuming hitting/spanking.

Assume a real independent four or five year old child who does not pay any attention to discussions, scoldings, or time outs who is throwing rocks, or dog shit at passers-by, or harassing and teasing the neighbor's little daughter to tears, throwing cats around by their tail, etc. How do you convince them that such things are not acceptable. After trying non-physical correction and failing, is a slap on their rump excessive?

yes

Children at such an age do not have the mental capacity of reason so they can not be reasoned with. They understand reward and punishment but if the punishment of "time out" doesn't bother them then there is no punishment. The point in rearing a child should be to produce an adult who has respect for others and the ability to understand and respect the mores of the society. This is established very early in a humans life. By the pre-teen years, their personality is pretty much set.

I've raised children. I don't need you to explain them to me, and given that your advice is to hit them I would never take child-rearing advice from you anyway.

P.S. my daughter was (& is) extremely headstrong and intelligent. She was a handful to raise, but I managed to do it without hitting her. Today she is a fourth year college honors student doing her internship in the medical field, and starting her Master's next year. The one thing my daughter has in abundance is genuine internalized respect for herself and others. She doesn't pretend it out of fear of being hit, she actually respects people.

If your kid is throwing dog shit and rocks at passing cars, maybe it is because you hit him/her and causing such acting out behavior. Throwing dog shit at people is not showing respect, but more importantly - an adult hitting a child is not demonstrating/modeling respect.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are not responsible for making some idiot at work into a citizen who respects others and the norms of society.

Children need discipline to learn what is acceptable in the society.

children need to be taught what is acceptable in society - that is light years away from 'discipline', much less using 'discipline' as a euphemism for physical violence.

Independent minded children that will not learn that way will need more severe discipline, maybe even spanking.

this is utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine.

Yeah, I understand that is your opinion. I could call it utterly wrong, ridiculous, stupid, morally repugnant, and asinine but my parents taught to have more respect for the fact that others have a right to their opinions even if I disagreed, very occasionally with a firm hand to my little rump.

Would you agree that people have the right to their own opinion that rape was acceptable, or slapping one's wife is a private matter?

No?

Certainly they have the right to such opinions. Acting on them is a different matter. I wouldn't want to see thought crime legislation enacted.

fair enough. People can *think* about hitting/spanking their children, just not act on that thought

Then why should hitting a child be a matter of personal preference?

It seems that you are assuming a beating that causes bodily harm.

I am assuming hitting/spanking.

Assume a real independent four or five year old child who does not pay any attention to discussions, scoldings, or time outs who is throwing rocks, or dog shit at passers-by, or harassing and teasing the neighbor's little daughter to tears, throwing cats around by their tail, etc. How do you convince them that such things are not acceptable. After trying non-physical correction and failing, is a slap on their rump excessive?

yes

Children at such an age do not have the mental capacity of reason so they can not be reasoned with. They understand reward and punishment but if the punishment of "time out" doesn't bother them then there is no punishment. The point in rearing a child should be to produce an adult who has respect for others and the ability to understand and respect the mores of the society. This is established very early in a humans life. By the pre-teen years, their personality is pretty much set.

I've raised children. I don't need you to explain them to me, and given that your advice is to hit them I would never take child-rearing advice from you anyway.

P.S. my daughter was (& is) extremely headstrong and intelligent. She was a handful to raise, but I managed to do it without hitting her. Today she is a fourth year college honors student doing her internship in the medical field, and starting her Master's next year. The one thing my daughter has in abundance is genuine internalized respect for herself and others. She doesn't pretend it out of fear of being hit, she actually respects people.

If your kid is throwing dog shit and rocks at passing cars, maybe it is because you hit him/her and causing such acting out behavior. Throwing dog shit at people is not showing respect, but more importantly - an adult hitting a child is not demonstrating/modeling respect.

Actually the super bratty behavior I mentioned was taken directly from two of my cousins. Their parents were both progressive educators who did not believe in and never practiced corporal punishment. Both my cousins were real hellions well into their twenties. When they would visit, all the neighborhood dogs and cats would vanish when their car pulled up. I can only remember having a slap on my rump three times.

 

[RavenSky]

Actually the super bratty behavior I mentioned was taken directly from two of my cousins. Their parents were both progressive educators who did not believe in and never practiced corporal punishment. Both my cousins were real hellions well into their twenties. When they would visit, all the neighborhood dogs and cats would vanish when their car pulled up. I can only remember having a slap on my rump three times.

If that is genuinely how the children are behaving, there is something else going on in that family that has nothing to do with whether they are spanked or not. Either that or you (& your cousins's parents) are mistaking "no corporal punishment" for "no guidence/discipline" at all.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Assume a real independent four or five year old child who does not pay any attention to discussions, scoldings, or time outs who is throwing rocks, or dog shit at passers-by, or harassing and teasing the neighbor's little daughter to tears, throwing cats around by their tail, etc. How do you convince them that such things are not acceptable. After trying non-physical correction and failing, is a slap on their rump excessive?

Children at such an age do not have the mental capacity of reason so they can not be reasoned with. They understand what they want, reward, and punishment but if the punishment of "time out" doesn't bother them then there is no punishment. The point in rearing a child should be to produce an adult who has respect for others and the ability to understand and respect the mores of the society. This is established very early in a human's life. By the pre-teen years, their personality is pretty much set.

However, anyone who does not regret having to punish a child shouldn't have children. But the responsibility of raising a child to respect others should be taken seriously.

You're right. And you will never teach someone to respect others by teaching them that hitting someone, to get what you want, is a good thing.

If a child is behaving in the ways you describe they have had someone modelling that sort of behaviour as normal, and no-one to tell them that it isn't right, no-one to teach them empathy. The society whose mores you would teach them to respect is one of force and coercion. Children have more capacity for reason than you give them credit for, especially keen in observing the hypocrisy in "I can hit you, but you can't hit other people." They copy the behaviour of their parents and do it long before reason sets in. So fair consequences for children give you just adults who look for fair consequences for all. Being a bully is the way to train people to be bullies.

I recently worked as a tutor in a household where corporal punishment, withdrawal of affection as a punishment and humiliation were the order of the day.

That child had punched me, jabbed me with pencils and verbally abused me before I been in her company for an hour. She considered that was perfectly acceptable, her parents having modelled that force majeure is the way to go.

 

[gmbteach]

I'm not a child...

You can't use your words when you are frustraited and the smartest thing you can come up with is lashing out with violence. This is what a child does. An adult reasons.

At what age do you think you can reason with a child?

 

[gmbteach]

In Primary school, at sports carnivals, all kids get a participation ribbon, with the place getters getting ribbons for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. The really young kids don't get ribbons, but they do all get a sticker that says 'I ran a race' or 'I swam in the pool'.

To me this doesn't give anything for the kid to really strive for. 'Oh, it doesn't matter if I don't place, I will get a ribbon anyway.'

When I was in school the only reason I got a ribbon for 3rd was because there were three swimmers in the race. I didn't feel proud of that accomplishment, because I still knew that I had come last.

You are saying opposite things here. On the one hand, you say you didn't feel any sense of accomplishment whe you won the third place ribbon because you were smart and realized that with only three people in the race, third place didn't mean anything.

Yet, on the other hand, you said that having participation ribbons didn't give anyone anything to strive for. You don't think they are smart enough to know that there in a race with 20 kids, there is a big difference between "participation" vs first, second or third place?

I've seen good arguments on both sides of this particular question, and don't have a strong opinion either way though.

Apologies RavenSky, it does sound different. I will try and elaborate. I was a child who, until I got those third place ribbons for coming last, had never received a ribbon for placing in anything as I am not sporty in any regards. Because of that, I knew that to get a ribbon you placed, but also realised that I only got it because there were only three people swimming.

Littlies are getting these ribbons and stickers etc from an early age for just participating and so I don't think they realise that they should strive for the place getters ribbons. They are being raised with the belief that they will get a ribbon just for running etc so why try hard? Does that make sense?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I think the point is being missed. The participation awards are to acknowledge that they got out and gave it a shot. If the focus is that they 'got something" then you've already shot yourself in the foot.

And when we're encouraging them to strive, to do their best, isn't the ribbon a secondary consideration?

It's not about the prize, it's about the message, and the words and attitudes surrounding the competition contain the message. The award is an opportunity for conversation about competition.

The "ugly parent" will give the wrong message about winning regardless of what object the child receives. The encouraging parent will get across the right attitude, regardless of what object the child receives.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think the point is being missed. The participation awards are to acknowledge that they got out and gave it a shot. If the focus is that they 'got something" then you've already shot yourself in the foot.

And when we're encouraging them to strive, to do their best, isn't the ribbon a secondary consideration?

It's not about the prize, it's about the message, and the words and attitudes surrounding the competition contain the message. The award is an opportunity for conversation about competition.

The "ugly parent" will give the wrong message about winning regardless of what object the child receives. The encouraging parent will get across the right attitude, regardless of what object the child receives.

Most everyone wants to reduce issues into nice, simple, easy to digest packages. Complexity and gray areas take effort to apprehend, and brains don't like wasting glucose on that shit when the black and white version is satisfying enough.

 

[dx713]

Please remain calm while the mods sort through the various TOU violations that already occured, and use the time to cool down. Thanks