Discipline for children

[thebeave]

Thank you. You were paying attention when you read my post. The child was asking the very valid question why violence is OK sometimes and not at others.

Actually, the kid was asking why it was OK for his father to "smack" him. Answer: It's not. Spanking, done right, is as different from "smacking" or "hitting" as working on the hinges to fix a door is different from kicking it to open it.

I love the way that every single anti-spanking poster on this thread refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the difference. It's like watching an echo-chamber full of YECists agree that we cannot have come from monkeys because there are still monkeys.

You forget its a different world now, thanks to all our social justice warriors (SJW). "Stealing" a kiss from Betty Jo while on a hayride at sunset is a sexual assault. Saying "Have a good evening" to a nice looking lady walking down the street is considered "harrassment". And spanking a kid on the behind is a violent assault.

 

[credoconsolans]

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

The whole 'you're a kid and I'm a adult ' line of reasoning lets kids learn very quickly that they cannot trust adults who are rank hypocrites. Or fools. Or both. This is reinforced by claiming that adults don't hot one another because they've learned self control, a claim that is undermined immediately when the adult hits the kid. Some self control.

Or they learn that adults are different from kids and therefore being an adult is something to aspire to so if you behave, like the adult wants you to, you can also be different.

We need to put back the desire in children to be adults. Right now socially, we envy children their ability to have no responsibilities and ability to play. We aspire to being rich and never having to worry about anything ever again and playing all day with things we love.

Children pick up on that. They know you'd rather be like them, so why should they aspire to don the mantle of a grownup?

You need to instill in them the desire that though adulthood comes with responsibilities, it also comes with certain privileges NOT open to a child.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

:snort: There is no "dynamic" that makes it ok for an adult to hit a child, and in no universe is hitting a child teaching him/her "discipline"

I will agree that an adult hitting a child is "punishment" though - ineffective and immature punishment that can lead to "antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and delinquency among children"

Can lead to, but not always. As there are plenty of live people who demonstrate otherwise.

Sure there is a dynamic. Obviously spike's kid is not getting the concept of 'no'. So the parent has to resort to physical discipline. Perhaps that will make an impact.

You don't know that. Nothing in what Spike said implies so.

It was pretty clear to me. Spike said his child wondered why it was wrong to his his brother. OBVIOUSLY Spike didn't immediately resort to physical discipline the first time his son did this and talking to him about why it was wrong didn't sink in.

First, Spike is a she.

I didn't want to assume anything about Spike. She could have easily been a married gay man with a spouse and a child. I'm sure that's OK with Spike. Is it OK with you?

Second, she wasn't talking about her own child.

Easy mistake to make. Her post was easy to misread in that sense.

And third, You're making this up. The kid's father may or may not have immediately resorted to physical violence (call it discipline if you like) the kid hit his brother, and he may or may not have attempted to explain it to him by talking about why it's wrong.

So how am I "making this up"? You just admitted you don't know.

More broadly though: If you're setting your educational goals at beating a "concept of 'no'" into kids, you're doing it wrong. You'll end up with kids who've learnt the lesson of "don't do it while adults are watching". I want to teach my kid why it's a bad idea, and the take-home lesson to be "don't do it, period".

Hard to do. There is always a possibility that ANY discipline a parent tries will be ignored when the parent is not around.

Kid's grasp a lot more than you give them credit for.

And you over estimate them.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Most adults most of the time don't hit anyone (kids included) because they know that hitting people (kids included) is wrong. Being hit by people who otherwise act like responsible adults who seem to love you makes learning this if anything more complicated.

No, they don't know hitting kids is wrong (and kids are who we're talking about, let's stay on subject), they believe it's wrong. Plenty of other people think otherwise.

Just like we don't know that stoning people for adultery is wrong, we just believe it's wrong. Plenty of cultures think otherwise.

Stick with our subject - kids, not dealing with another adult. Once people become adults, they are responsible for their own actions for good or bad and we have laws to deal with their lack of discipline.

I'm not changing the subject. I'm applying your logic to a different scenario.

Which is irrelevant because different rules apply to adults.

 

[credoconsolans]

And when spanking gets to be physical assault you let me know, then I can claim that you holding your child against his will in a "time out" is kidnapping.

No, you let us know when we've re-introduced lashings as a legitimate form of punishment - only then will the two become comparable. There's plenty of situations that are perceived as exceptions to the general rule of "don't hold anyone against their will" when doing so serves public safety, without perceiving the act as kidnapping. There are no situations which we perceive as legitimate exceptions to the rule of "don't inflict unnecessary pain" when it comes to adults.

Since when is holding a child against their will when they want to explore a mall/friend's house/yard/garage/etc 'serving public safety'? You just don't want them to leave you so you forcibly hold them against their will.

That's illegal if you want to get into this battle.

 

[credoconsolans]

Thank you. You were paying attention when you read my post. The child was asking the very valid question why violence is OK sometimes and not at others.

Easy answer. He's a kid and you're an adult.

He's "clue-y" but not so much that he still acts out to situations by hitting his brother and doesn't know why it's bad to do so.

IOW, he's a kid and not that sharp.

You need to explain about discipline as you don't expect him to keep hitting his brother when he's an adult as adults don't hit each other because they learned discipline.

Adults who have learned self discipline don't hit other people. Adults who were physically disciplined as kids have to undo the lessons of what they have experienced and observed if they are to come to self- rather than externally imposed- discipline.

OK, by that argument, you could say that a child who acted out and hit another kid but was never hit in response will have to "unlearn" this later in life because they're not used to being hit back when they hit another person.

Right?

The kid was smart enough to see the hypocrisy in the two different stances.

He didn't even know why it was wrong to hit his brother. He's not the sharpest pencil in the box.

Very late to the party, but been reading responses. There is an underlying assumption that children are always innocent and benign creatures that require only a bit of love and attention to steer them on the right path. I don't believe this is the case.

For the last two weeks, I have provided parental support to a gentleman with a son that has vandalized his house, including breaking out windows, destroying furniture and writing death threats on the walls. He has also assaulted his mother and father during this time period by punching them hard enough to leaves marks on the body.

These are not the only parents I have heard of with stories like this that call me for such things. I am associated with a mother of a 7 year old that batters her. This same child attempted to hit me once. I picked him up, held him upside down with a shake and told him, "I can do this shit all day until you sit your ass down and stop treating your mother like that." Scared him so bad he burst into tears. But he did not attempt to hit me ever again. In fact, the school began calling me to go on fieldtrips to supervise him along with his mother.

While I am not an advocate of strong corporeal punishment, I am also aware that there are certain types of children that will push the physical envelope until you shove back harder. The same way a bully will only stop upon getting punched one good time. Most kids don't need that sort of thing. But there's some of them that do.

Kids are largely the products of their experience. There are exceptions, but look for violence in the life of a violent child. I note that you opted for a discouraging technique that got the kid's attention and gave you a chance to communicate with the child, but you didn't hit him.

But he did respond to his act by performing a physical act on the child and it worked.

And no, sometimes kids just lash out.

My brother and his wife never spanked their kids. His daughter grew up to break a jewelry box over the head of her older sister - they were 16 and 20 years old at the time - and sent her sister to the ER for stitches.

Girl was never spanked in her life, parents were never violent with her. They did the 'try to talk to her' route.

Exception? There are a lot of them.

 

[credoconsolans]

Parents who have never experienced kids on the extreme edge of the bell curve often cannot conceive of their existence. The fact that some children will push until physically pushed back does not fit into the confirmation bias of this thread, therefore it must not be real.

- - - Updated - - -

0, we don't see children as benign angels, but as human beings. Small, vulnerable, human beings.

Restraining a violent child may be justified, but hitting isn't, and while getting angry with them is understandable, it's not justification for shaking or hitting.

Edited: And children are innocent.

Actually, it's the getting angry that's really harmful. And nobody is innocent. We're all selfish, sneaky liars and thieves. If you deny this, you deny your own humanity.

Well said Davka.

I've babysat, held the hands of tantrumming children, tried to reason with them and got smacked in the face, with long bleeding scratches for my trouble. And no, this child was perfectly normal, and was never spanked in her life.

All kids are different and not all of them are sweet as pie. Children by nature are self-absorbed and narcissistic. The world should revolve around them and they get angry and frustrated when it doesn't and this shows up in their behavior.

 

[rousseau]

Google search "Is spanking effective":

Why spanking isn't effective, Time Magazine
Why spanking should be discouraged, Cornell University
Research on spanking: It's bad for all kids, Psychology Today
Studies show spanking can change brain chemistry, Washington Post
The first real time study of parents spanking their kids, Time Magazine

Moms and dads who spank do so because they believe it’s effective, and research actually shows that it is — in the short-term. A child reaching for a tempting object will stop if he gets swatted. “It does work in the immediate moment, but beyond that, in most cases, it’s very ineffective,” says Holden. “The most common long-term consequence is that children learn to use aggression.”

Spanking the gray matter out of our kids, CNN
Spanking children slows cognitive development and increases risk of criminal behavior, expert says, ScienceDaily
Why does everyone pretend there is a spanking debate?, Huffington Post

At what point does something become simple fact? The Pediatrics article was just the latest in a decades-long march of studies showing spanking -- defined as hitting with an open hand in order to correct or punish -- to be ineffective at best and psychologically harmful at worst.

Is anyone convinced yet?

 

[rousseau]

Parents who have never experienced kids on the extreme edge of the bell curve often cannot conceive of their existence. The fact that some children will push until physically pushed back does not fit into the confirmation bias of this thread, therefore it must not be real.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually, it's the getting angry that's really harmful. And nobody is innocent. We're all selfish, sneaky liars and thieves. If you deny this, you deny your own humanity.

Well said Davka.

I've babysat, held the hands of tantrumming children, tried to reason with them and got smacked in the face, with long bleeding scratches for my trouble. And no, this child was perfectly normal, and was never spanked in her life.

All kids are different and not all of them are sweet as pie. Children by nature are self-absorbed and narcissistic. The world should revolve around them and they get angry and frustrated when it doesn't and this shows up in their behavior.

Even if a kid pushes until they are pushed back:

Why is hitting the best option in response?

 

[Jokodo]

Yeah, what credo said. Its a different dynamic. Think of it like a teacher and a classroom full of kids. The teacher can dish out punishment as necessary to the kids (suspend them, keep them after school, make them clean erasers, etc). But the kids are not supposed to be dishing out punishment to each other.

:snort: There is no "dynamic" that makes it ok for an adult to hit a child, and in no universe is hitting a child teaching him/her "discipline"

I will agree that an adult hitting a child is "punishment" though - ineffective and immature punishment that can lead to "antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and delinquency among children"

Can lead to, but not always. As there are plenty of live people who demonstrate otherwise.

Sure there is a dynamic. Obviously spike's kid is not getting the concept of 'no'. So the parent has to resort to physical discipline. Perhaps that will make an impact.

You don't know that. Nothing in what Spike said implies so.

It was pretty clear to me. Spike said his child wondered why it was wrong to his his brother. OBVIOUSLY Spike didn't immediately resort to physical discipline the first time his son did this and talking to him about why it was wrong didn't sink in.

<snip>

You're making this up. The kid's father may or may not have immediately resorted to physical violence (call it discipline if you like) the kid hit his brother, and he may or may not have attempted to explain it to him by talking about why it's wrong.

So how am I "making this up"? You just admitted you don't know.

You're making this up because you don't know any better than I do, which doesn't stop you from starting an explanation with OBVIOUSLY in all caps. That's as making up as it gets. This is the second time in a row that you've said "obviously" followed by something that doesn't follow from Spike's account (or even contradicts it) just because it suits your narrative.

 

[Jokodo]

No, you let us know when we've re-introduced lashings as a legitimate form of punishment - only then will the two become comparable. There's plenty of situations that are perceived as exceptions to the general rule of "don't hold anyone against their will" when doing so serves public safety, without perceiving the act as kidnapping. There are no situations which we perceive as legitimate exceptions to the rule of "don't inflict unnecessary pain" when it comes to adults.

Since when is holding a child against their will when they want to explore a mall/friend's house/yard/garage/etc 'serving public safety'? You just don't want them to leave you so you forcibly hold them against their will.

That's illegal if you want to get into this battle.

The point you're missing is that the indiction against restraining a person against their will is not as universal as the indiction against inflicting unnecessary pain. You are trying to argue that we must accept that there's a different standard for inflicting pain on children than on adults otherwise we're being hypocrites because we are in fact applying a different standard when it comes to restraining a person. That's not true because restraining isn't as universally bad as inflicting pain in the first place, even when only looking at interactions between adults.

 

[Davka]

The Pediatrics article was just the latest in a decades-long march of studies showing spanking -- defined as hitting with an open hand in order to correct or punish -- to be ineffective at best and psychologically harmful at worst.

Is anyone convinced yet?

Of course not. That definition is self-serving, creating a circular argument.

As I have said many times and will doubtless say many more times, it is extremely telling that the anti-spanking folks completely ignore the definition(s) of spanking given by those who feel it has a place in discipline. Not only do they ignore the definition of what we assert is a healthy spanking practice, but they deliberately re-define "spanking" to be indistinguishable from abuse.

This is reminiscent of the many, many studies which showed conclusively that homosexuality is a mental illness. The psychiatric community has a lo-o-o-ong history of asserting hypotheses as fact, until some brave psychiatrist has the temerity to challenge the status quo (and get slammed for their service). This glorious circular argument can be summed up as follows: "spanking (defined for the purpose of this study as synonymous with child abuse) is clearly child abuse."

- - - Updated - - -

The point you're missing is that the indiction against restraining a person against their will is not as universal as the indiction against inflicting unnecessary pain.

Nonsense. This is your unsupported opinion, nothing more.

 

[Playball40]

Is anyone convinced yet?

Of course not. That definition is self-serving, creating a circular argument.

As I have said many times and will doubtless say many more times, it is extremely telling that the anti-spanking folks completely ignore the definition(s) of spanking given by those who feel it has a place in discipline. Not only do they ignore the definition of what we assert is a healthy spanking practice, but they deliberately re-define "spanking" to be indistinguishable from abuse.

This is reminiscent of the many, many studies which showed conclusively that homosexuality is a mental illness. The psychiatric community has a lo-o-o-ong history of asserting hypotheses as fact, until some brave psychiatrist has the temerity to challenge the status quo (and get slammed for their service). This glorious circular argument can be summed up as follows: "spanking (defined for the purpose of this study as synonymous with child abuse) is clearly child abuse."

- - - Updated - - -

The point you're missing is that the indiction against restraining a person against their will is not as universal as the indiction against inflicting unnecessary pain.

Nonsense. This is your unsupported opinion, nothing more.

Nonsense. There is NO WAY to define spanking without using at least one of the words "strike" "hit" or something of that nature. How the heck can you NOT define spanking without doing so? "Bringing a hand or object down upon a child with enough force to cause a negative reaction"??? I just don't get how you can redefine spanking.

And for many many many year, spanking a child was considered a normal and even healthy part of child rearing and development (much like homosexuality was accepted as a mental illness). Guess what? As scientists, therapist, pediatricians et al learn more, their positions change. Just as homosexuality is NO LONGER considered a mental illness, SPANKING is no longer considered an effective and beneficial child rearing method.

 

[Davka]

There is NO WAY to define spanking without using at least one of the words "strike" "hit" or something of that nature. How the heck can you NOT define spanking without doing so? "Bringing a hand or object down upon a child with enough force to cause a negative reaction"??? I just don't get how you can redefine spanking.

I've done it many times already, and I'm always ignored. I'll do it again, so you can ignore me some more.

Spanking As Discipline

When practiced as a method of teaching discipline, spanking itself must be a very disciplined practice. It must be subject to the following rules:

1) Always make sure that your child is aware beforehand that a very specific behavior or set of behaviors will result in a spanking. Don't spring it on them out of nowhere - this goes for any and all consequences for misbehavior.
2) Never, ever, threaten your child. Instead, calmly explain that behavior X will result in a spanking, and follow through. Threats don't teach anything other than how far a child can push before the parent loses his/her temper and lashes out with abuse. The whole point of consequences for actions is to establish an immovable line which the child will not want to cross.
3) Never spank your child when you are angry. Period.
4) Spankings must be consistent and predictable. The ideal looks something like this: Start with an explanation, "I told you that if you did X you would get a spanking. You did X. Now you're going to get a spanking." Hold the child across your knee and deliver a set number of spanks (we always used three). The idea is to cause minor, passing pain which will act as a deterrent to future misbehavior. Follow up with a hug, and a conversation about why the spanking happened and how to avoid future spankings. Always make sure that your child knows you love them, and are not angry with them.​

I see parents - those who are aghast at the idea of striking a child - engage in all sorts of non-physical abuse all the time. They yell, they issue empty threats, they count to three (after which nothing happens), they call their kids names. And I'm willing to bet that many of those parents who self-righteously use "time out" as their only consequence don't bother to follow those rules. Inconsistency is perhaps the most abusive behavior any parent can engage in, in my opinion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm just curious - are those in favour of spanking also in favour of allowing teachers to smack unruly students? That used to be a common mode of disclipine for all the reasons that spanking by parents is called acceptable for and I'm curious if they're good with that as well. Or if it's OK for school bus drivers to slap passengers who are acting up? Or if store owners can cuff a kid behind the ear if they're too loud in his shop?

 

[Rhea]

I see parents - those who are aghast at the idea of striking a child - engage in all sorts of non-physical abuse all the time. They yell, they issue empty threats, they count to three (after which nothing happens), they call their kids names. And I'm willing to bet that many of those parents who self-righteously use "time out" as their only consequence don't bother to follow those rules. Inconsistency is perhaps the most abusive behavior any parent can engage in, in my opinion.

I agree completely that consistency and communication are the key to getting into a child's head and making changes there.
I am not sure why it would indicate that spanking needs to be a part of that.

It sounds like you are telling people that your consistency is what got you results and the spanking was irrelevant - it could have been any minor passing pain, including the pain of separation from goodies (or activities) or disapproval from a parent. I would agree with that. Consistency and clarity is 100% of the battle. The specific application of the "pain" is barely relevant except for the aftermath when kids need to decide whether they are themselves allowed to apply it to others. At which point, spanking requires an additional discussion and stepping away from the problem does not.

 

[Davka]

I'm just curious - are those in favour of spanking also in favour of allowing teachers to smack unruly students? That used to be a common mode of disclipine for all the reasons that spanking by parents is called acceptable for and I'm curious if they're good with that as well. Or if it's OK for school bus drivers to slap passengers who are acting up? Or if store owners can cuff a kid behind the ear if they're too loud in his shop?

I'm curious as to whether you read my above rules, and - if so - how the Hell you think any of your scenarios would fit what I wrote?

 

[Davka]

I see parents - those who are aghast at the idea of striking a child - engage in all sorts of non-physical abuse all the time. They yell, they issue empty threats, they count to three (after which nothing happens), they call their kids names. And I'm willing to bet that many of those parents who self-righteously use "time out" as their only consequence don't bother to follow those rules. Inconsistency is perhaps the most abusive behavior any parent can engage in, in my opinion.

I agree completely that consistency and communication are the key to getting into a child's head and making changes there.
I am not sure why it would indicate that spanking needs to be a part of that.

It sounds like you are telling people that your consistency is what got you results and the spanking was irrelevant - it could have been any minor passing pain, including the pain of separation from goodies (or activities) or disapproval from a parent. I would agree with that. Consistency and clarity is 100% of the battle. The specific application of the "pain" is barely relevant except for the aftermath when kids need to decide whether they are themselves allowed to apply it to others. At which point, spanking requires an additional discussion and stepping away from the problem does not.

I see the various "artificial consequences" which can be imposed by parents as falling along a spectrum. At one end of that spectrum would be a mild admonishment, which is enough to cause some children to wail in anguish. At the other end of the spectrum is spanking. Just as mild admonishments are useless for most kids, so spanking is not necessary for most kids.

Whether you concede that spanking belongs in the tool kit at all is irrelevant. Any artificial consequence imposed by parents should (IMO) follow the above guidelines. If you find that your child responds to consequences short of spanking, great! You've won the genetic lottery, and as long as you are consistent, you can use time-out and dessert deprivation as teaching tools. If, however, you are following all the rules and find that nothing short of spanking changes behavior, you might consider trying it. If it doesn't work, then by all means abandon it. And if you can manage without it, then by all means do so.

Some of us have children who fall at the extreme end of the rebellious spectrum. Judging the methods we use by the methods that worked on your own child is foolish, and more than a teensy bit condescending.

 

[Rhea]

I see the various "artificial consequences" which can be imposed by parents as falling along a spectrum. At one end of that spectrum would be a mild admonishment, which is enough to cause some children to wail in anguish. At the other end of the spectrum is spanking. Just as mild admonishments are useless for most kids, so spanking is not necessary for most kids.

I agree that there is a spectrum. Would you agree that much of what is effective can depend upon what was used early on?

If you find that your child responds to consequences short of spanking, great! You've won the genetic lottery, and as long as you are consistent, you can use time-out and dessert deprivation as teaching tools.

For the sake of interesting contribution, we did not use time-outs and dessert deprivation, except in the case where someone needed to actually be separated from someone else, in which case they were separated, or if the behavior problems happened at the table in which case they had to leave before dessert happened. Just a little "color" for the broadcast.

If, however, you are following all the rules and find that nothing short of spanking changes behavior, you might consider trying it. If it doesn't work, then by all means abandon it. And if you can manage without it, then by all means do so.

Some of us have children who fall at the extreme end of the rebellious spectrum. Judging the methods we use by the methods that worked on your own child is foolish, and more than a teensy bit condescending.

I did not intend to judge your methods based on what worked for us. I intended to discuss your method based on what you said. I am sorry that it came off as condescending; it was intended to be a question. Your list and comments did not indicate a clear path by which a route to spanking was related to the list.

Also, I'm not saying we had little easy-juniors around here. We went through a period of significant disruption as a child with movement and neurological disorders found his way in the world. Also, please recall that I am not really an "anti-spanker," so it would be a mistake to assume I am aghast or any such thing. We considered starting spanking, but decided it would probably be disaster as he applied his knowledge to his world.

 

[Davka]

I agree that there is a spectrum. Would you agree that much of what is effective can depend upon what was used early on?

I honestly can't say. It's a question worthy of study, but I'm not sure how we could study it humanely.

If you find that your child responds to consequences short of spanking, great! You've won the genetic lottery, and as long as you are consistent, you can use time-out and dessert deprivation as teaching tools.

For the sake of interesting contribution, we did not use time-outs and dessert deprivation, except in the case where someone needed to actually be separated from someone else, in which case they were separated, or if the behavior problems happened at the table in which case they had to leave before dessert happened. Just a little "color" for the broadcast.

Yeah, I was mostly using them as generic examples.

If, however, you are following all the rules and find that nothing short of spanking changes behavior, you might consider trying it. If it doesn't work, then by all means abandon it. And if you can manage without it, then by all means do so.

Some of us have children who fall at the extreme end of the rebellious spectrum. Judging the methods we use by the methods that worked on your own child is foolish, and more than a teensy bit condescending.

I did not intend to judge your methods based on what worked for us. I intended to discuss your method based on what you said. I am sorry that it came off as condescending; it was intended to be a question. Your list and comments did not indicate a clear path by which a route to spanking was related to the list.

Also, I'm not saying we had little easy-juniors around here. We went through a period of significant disruption as a child with movement and neurological disorders found his way in the world. Also, please recall that I am not really an "anti-spanker," so it would be a mistake to assume I am aghast or any such thing. We considered starting spanking, but decided it would probably be disaster as he applied his knowledge to his world.

I wasn't aiming those comments at you specifically, or at your post in particular. I could have been clearer about that.

Your list and comments did not indicate a clear path by which a route to spanking was related to the list.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Rhea]

Your list and comments did not indicate a clear path by which a route to spanking was related to the list.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this.

I meant reading that post with the list had very useful info, but none of it demonstrated (or even tried to) that spanking was a necessary part of the puzzle as consistency and communication. So the list was right on, but did not make any case for why spanking is productive. That's all.