In years of having this discussion, not one pro-spanking person has ever been able to give me a single example of something positive that spanking accomplishes that a non-spanking approach would not also solve.
Well, I wouldn't consider myself to be "pro-spanking", because I don't think anyone with an ounce of reason or compassion is actually
pro spanking. I am, however, not
anti-spanking categorically. It has utility in limited scenarios. An example of something positive that the provision of physical pain can accomplish that failure to give pain cannot solve is in the development of empathy and sympathy in toddlers. Toddlers go through a stage (often between 1 and 3) where they bite and hit and kick and otherwise act out when they are unhappy. You could try to reason with a toddler, I suppose, but I doubt that's going to accomplish much. Quick and moderate retributory pain, however, acts as a means of teaching that their actions cause pain to others, and is by far the fastest method of creating awareness of the repercussions of their own actions. If a toddler bites you, bite them back - not too hard mind you, but enough to hurt. If they hit you, hit back. Follow each action up with a firm "No!" and a parental scowl, and if feasible, time in an isolated "time-out" situation. In this way, they learn that their actions cause pain to other people, as well as learning that they are socially unacceptable.
Corporal punishment may deter unwanted behavior, but not by teaching right from wrong. It teaches fear of retribution.
You can mold a dog's or a lab rat's behavior with painful stimuli just as easily, but don't think you're teaching them right from wrong.
You can impose good behavior, but not morality. Morality is an internalized ethic, not an external, enforced inhibition.
Of course you're not teaching morality; you're teaching social mores. The two are related, but not necessarily the same thing. You're teaching "this behavior is not acceptable". This is the same thing that you're teaching a dog or a cat. Consequently, it's the exact same thing that an adult dog teaches their pup when they snap at them and pin them down. It's the same thing an adult cat is teaching when they smack a kitten, or bite an ear.
You cannot begin to teach why the action is unacceptable (the basis for both morality and ethics) until the child has the capacity to understand the explanation you're giving them (for morality) and the ability to independently reason and apply those reasons (for ethics).
same escalation of violence in my childhood, it just taught me to lie first always and to be constantly manipulating my parents to not get caught.
Interesting. I was mostly only spanked for lying. I might be grounded for misbehavior, or given manual labor, or all sorts of tedious and distasteful tasks. But my rare spankings as a child were almost all for lying. Lying was by far the worst thing I could do as a child, and carried a punishment that far surpassed any other meted out by my parents.
And by the way if you can´t outwit a child and have to resort to violence, you should keep it in your pants until you learn how to use your words.
I'm quite certain that we can all outwit a toddler; I'm also quite certain that being able to outwit a toddler is irrelevant when it comes to discipline. Being smarter than them doesn't in any fashion guarantee that you're able to reason with them.
How exactly do you communicate to a toddler that their behavior is unacceptable? What do you do if you've got a toddler with a good imagination and a very strong will, who is undeterred by time-outs? How exactly do you recommend conveying to them convincingly that they need to stop pouring juice all over their infant brother while he's sleeping every time they're unsupervised for 10 seconds?
So you're saying that time-outs aren't effective because they weren't effective on you, specifically?
It stands to reason that if time-outs weren't effective on some people (including me as well) then there is a subset of people on whom they aren't effective. This they aren't effective on ALL people. So what is your alternative to time-outs?
cite one single example in all of Western culture where what you're advocating doing to children wouldn't be called assault if you did it to an adult, and we can change the entire conversation.
Adults are capable of reason where children are not. This is not a comparable situation.
However, I do notice that you limited it to "Western" culture. You've conveniently, and quite cleverly, excluded all those areas of the world that allow for corporal punishment in their criminal justice systems. In fact, it's only in relatively modern times that corporal punishment has been removed from our justice system - for a significant amount of human history corporal punishment in the form of whipping, flogging, and similar has been exactly parallel to the same actions taken with recalcitrant children. Now, of course, you're welcome to be disgusted by the actions of our ancestors, and to deride that as barbaric... but various forms of corporal punishment was used in criminal justice in the Western world into the 20th century.
Judicial Corporal Punishment
I by no means advocate spanking children. It should be a punishment of last resort. By the same argument, I by no means advocate engaging in war; it too should be an engagement of last resort and only turned to when all other negotiations have failed. But I would be naive and negligent to suggest pacifism in the face of an overt aggressor... and I maintain that there may be times when a spanking may be the functionally appropriate action to take.
