Discipline for children

[Davka]

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.

Ah - OK.

That's because it wasn't intended to be an argument for spanking, but rather a re-stating of my definition of 'spanking.'

 

[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?

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?

Which one of them?

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.

If a shop owner posts a sign in his store which clearly and specifically states that loud and unruly behaviour by children in his store will result in a cuffing or a school has a clear policy that actions on a certain list of behaviours will result in their hands getting smacked a given number of times with a ruler then:

1) The kids are aware beforehand that specific behaviours will result in a spanking
2) It's calmly explained that the behaviour will result in a spanking and and then that's followed through on
3) It's just an employee doing a part of their job by spanking the kids and they're not actually angry at him them in any way
4) It's consistent and predictable when and why a spanking will occur

You seem to feel that it's obvious that your set of rules would exclude both of these scenarios, though. I'm missing how that's the case.

 

[Nira]

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.

If you are able to follow through that list you are perfectly able to work with the child in other and better ways. Mentioning that some non spanking parenting also can be abusive or negative does not make spanking any better or good.

 

[Davka]

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?

Which one of them?

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.

If a shop owner posts a sign in his store which clearly and specifically states that loud and unruly behaviour by children in his store will result in a cuffing or a school has a clear policy that actions on a certain list of behaviours will result in their hands getting smacked a given number of times with a ruler then:

1) The kids are aware beforehand that specific behaviours will result in a spanking
2) It's calmly explained that the behaviour will result in a spanking and and then that's followed through on
3) It's just an employee doing a part of their job by spanking the kids and they're not actually angry at him them in any way
4) It's consistent and predictable when and why a spanking will occur

You seem to feel that it's obvious that your set of rules would exclude both of these scenarios, though. I'm missing how that's the case.

Seriously?

because you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that what i wrote magically applies to any adult, anywhere, "smacking" or "cuffing" someone else's kids. And I'm pretty sure that you're not a moron. You probably don't think it's perfectly OK for other adults to discipline your kids, even if they use the same methods you use (or some interpretation thereof), simply because you don't go around disciplining other people's kids. This sort of goes along with the idea that you don't get to tell other parents how to raise their kids, come to think of it.

Since you're not a moron, I can only assume that you were either being sarcastic, deliberately obtuse, or drunk. I'm kind of rooting for drunk.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Seriously?

because you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that what i wrote magically applies to any adult, anywhere, "smacking" or "cuffing" someone else's kids. And I'm pretty sure that you're not a moron. You probably don't think it's perfectly OK for other adults to discipline your kids, even if they use the same methods you use (or some interpretation thereof), simply because you don't go around disciplining other people's kids. This sort of goes along with the idea that you don't get to tell other parents how to raise their kids, come to think of it.

Since you're not a moron, I can only assume that you were either being sarcastic, deliberately obtuse, or drunk. I'm kind of rooting for drunk.

Me-ow. I'm not sure who it was who pissedd in your Cheerios this morning, but it wasn't actaully me. Please call your mother and let her know that she didn't smack you around enough and you're still unruly as a result.

I just don't see why it is that if a kid is acting out in any of the manners that have mentioned as legitmate times for spankings:

A) When they're out with their parents it's acceptable for those parents to spank them
B) When they're out on a field trip, it's not acceptable for teachers to spank them

As you know, corporal punishment in schools was quite common and accepted until recently. When I read books about historical times, adults in a town smacking around the kids who are acting up or whacking them with a spoon if they try to steal a pie and the like is often mentioned as common and accepted behaviour. I assume from your response that you agree with me that both of those things would now be properly termed child abuse.

Why is "parent" an acceptable authority figure to mete out corporal punishment for you, but "teacher" is not?

 

[RavenSky]

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...

In no other argument anywhere on this board would you agree as acceptable the self-serving changing of the definition of a word, yet you are put out because we are not going to agree to your special-pleading redefinition of spanking here.

Spanking = hitting by definition

I am sorry if that fact makes you uncomfortable.

Actually, I'm not. I wish it made every parent who *spanks* uncomfortable enough to stop hitting their kid under the misguided belief it constitutes "discipline"

 

[RavenSky]

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.

You did not define "spanking"

And it still means to hit/strike/slap a children, typically on the buttocks.

What you've written above are simply your personal rules for hitting your kids.

 

[Rhea]

Actually, I'm not. I wish it made every parent who *spanks* uncomfortable enough to stop hitting their kid under the misguided belief it constitutes "discipline"

Although, to be technical, I suspect Davka is not spanking anyone at all nowadays - aren't your children all grown?


That brings another funny spanking story to mind.

My mother was making supper and some involved game that drove us all crazy that she'd make us play at dinner. The meal was beets and some kind of meat. So the six of us are sitting at the table, waiting for instructions on the stupid game we'd have to pretend to like before we could eat and my father comes in - wearing a bright school-bus yellow sweatshirt. He was Autistic so colorful clothes were a common part of his repertoire; he cared not what the fashion mavens thought.

He wanted to eat. He's hungry, it's dinner time he wants to eat. Did I mention there was some game that the hungry autistic guy was supposed to indulge before serving himself? He soon found out. And roared, as he was wont to do. "WHY CAN'T WE JUST EAT!?"

Mother was incensed. OCD Aspie mother was just outraged at this thwarting of her Perfect Family Moment. She threw the beets at him. (They looked fabulous on his yellow shirt).

His jaw dropped. Her jaw dropped. She ran down the hall, he followed, roaring. He caught her at the bottom of the stairs and proceeded to spank her. Because, I guess that's what you do when people are unruly.

Satisfied that justice had been meted out properly, he returned to the kitchen and proceeded to fill his plate with meat and potatoes and sat down to eat. Chastised, she cried and left the room. We six were thrilled to not ONLY get out of the game, but get out of the beets, too.

 

[Playball40]

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.

Please tell me the definition of verb "spanking" in these rules.

 

[Playball40]

Actually, I'm not. I wish it made every parent who *spanks* uncomfortable enough to stop hitting their kid under the misguided belief it constitutes "discipline"

Although, to be technical, I suspect Davka is not spanking anyone at all nowadays - aren't your children all grown?


That brings another funny spanking story to mind.

My mother was making supper and some involved game that drove us all crazy that she'd make us play at dinner. The meal was beets and some kind of meat. So the six of us are sitting at the table, waiting for instructions on the stupid game we'd have to pretend to like before we could eat and my father comes in - wearing a bright school-bus yellow sweatshirt. He was Autistic so colorful clothes were a common part of his repertoire; he cared not what the fashion mavens thought.

He wanted to eat. He's hungry, it's dinner time he wants to eat. Did I mention there was some game that the hungry autistic guy was supposed to indulge before serving himself? He soon found out. And roared, as he was wont to do. "WHY CAN'T WE JUST EAT!?"

Mother was incensed. OCD Aspie mother was just outraged at this thwarting of her Perfect Family Moment. She threw the beets at him. (They looked fabulous on his yellow shirt).

His jaw dropped. Her jaw dropped. She ran down the hall, he followed, roaring. He caught her at the bottom of the stairs and proceeded to spank her. Because, I guess that's what you do when people are unruly.

Satisfied that justice had been meted out properly, he returned to the kitchen and proceeded to fill his plate with meat and potatoes and sat down to eat. Chastised, she cried and left the room. We six were thrilled to not ONLY get out of the game, but get out of the beets, too.

Sounds like an episode of I Love Lucy!

 

[Jokodo]

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. [bolding added, italics in original]

So pray tell, how do you "deliver a set number of spanks causing minor passing pain" without "Bringing a hand or object down upon a child with enough force to cause a negative reaction"? The fact that the hitting is surrounded by an elaborate ritual and set of rules doesn't make the hitting go away.

 

[Davka]

I just don't see why it is that if a kid is acting out in any of the manners that have mentioned as legitmate times for spankings:

A) When they're out with their parents it's acceptable for those parents to spank them
B) When they're out on a field trip, it's not acceptable for teachers to spank them

I take it back. Since you're not being sarcastic, we're down to deliberately obtuse, drunk, or moron. Drunk is losing the battle, since you don't seem to be slurring your words.

Yes, Tom, anything that is acceptable between a parent and child under consistent, controlled circumstances is perfectly acceptable between any random adult and that same child under any circumstances. Feeding the child? Sure, who cares if the parents are vegan, or the child has nut allergies? If it's OK at home, it's fine for any random stranger to apply the loosest-possible reading of home rules to any situation! Giving kids baths? Well, if there are rules for parents & kids & baths at home, why shouldn't they apply equally to strangers absolutely everywhere?

And the very careful, emotion-free, specific rules I outlined are absolutely equal to any random adult hauling off and backhanding a kid in the face any time they thinks it's appropriate. Just as the rules for a "time out" at your house can be equally applied to any adult, anywhere. Did some adult find your child's actions objectionable and decide to have them dragged off against their will? It's not kidnapping, it's just a time out!

So of course you're right. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between an interaction between a parent and child at home, and that self-same interaction between any adult, anywhere, and that same child. Your logic is impeccable, and I predict that with such a sterling intellect you will go far - possibly even as high as assistant manager of a Burger King.

 

[Davka]

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...

In no other argument anywhere on this board would you agree as acceptable the self-serving changing of the definition of a word, yet you are put out because we are not going to agree to your special-pleading redefinition of spanking here.

Spanking = hitting by definition

I am sorry if that fact makes you uncomfortable.

Actually, I'm not. I wish it made every parent who *spanks* uncomfortable enough to stop hitting their kid under the misguided belief it constitutes "discipline"

It's not special pleading. It's a clear definition, indented to stop the silly "you think spanking is sometimes acceptable therefore you think it's OK to slap a child in the face or otherwise abuse them" bullshit. I swear, the inability of posters on this thread to reason is downright frightening.

 

[Davka]

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.

You did not define "spanking"

And it still means to hit/strike/slap a children, typically on the buttocks.

What you've written above are simply your personal rules for hitting your kids.

I defined "Spanking as discipline." It is defined as quite different from "smacking upside the head," or "delivering a dope slap," or "hitting," or "beating," or any of the other terms used here by deliberately obtuse, apparently ignorant posters.

The definition given in those studies, "hitting with an open hand," is far too broad. It encompasses "spanking as discipline,' sure, but it does not differentiate between what I described and back-handing a kid in a grocery store. That's like defining "boxing" as "striking with a closed fist," and pretending that therefore a street fight is "boxing," or even tying someone up and punching them repeatedly is "boxing."

It's pretty obvious what's going on: the refusal to even acknowledge that a difference exists between back-handing a kid in anger and spanking them as a calm, last-ditch effort as discipline. As long as you can keep on pretending that any physical striking of a child is automatically abuse, you can avoid examining your irrational emotional reaction, and thus avoid possibly having to admit to yourself that you are wrong.

So go on pretending that all punching is "boxing," and all flailing in water is "swimming," and all argument is "debate." But you might want to turn in your "freethinker" badge if you're planning to wander through life with blinders on.

 

[Playball40]

In no other argument anywhere on this board would you agree as acceptable the self-serving changing of the definition of a word, yet you are put out because we are not going to agree to your special-pleading redefinition of spanking here.

Spanking = hitting by definition

I am sorry if that fact makes you uncomfortable.

Actually, I'm not. I wish it made every parent who *spanks* uncomfortable enough to stop hitting their kid under the misguided belief it constitutes "discipline"

It's not special pleading. It's a clear definition, indented to stop the silly "you think spanking is sometimes acceptable therefore you think it's OK to slap a child in the face or otherwise abuse them" bullshit. I swear, the inability of posters on this thread to reason is downright frightening.

And yet, I did not see that in the articles that were referenced. You seem to be drawing a line between the location of the spank. The articles seem to be implying that it is irrelevent and are referring to spanking in general.

 

[Playball40]

You did not define "spanking"

And it still means to hit/strike/slap a children, typically on the buttocks.

What you've written above are simply your personal rules for hitting your kids.

I defined "Spanking as discipline." It is defined as quite different from "smacking upside the head," or "delivering a dope slap," or "hitting," or "beating," or any of the other terms used here by deliberately obtuse, apparently ignorant posters.

The definition given in those studies, "hitting with an open hand," is far too broad. It encompasses "spanking as discipline,' sure, but it does not differentiate between what I described and back-handing a kid in a grocery store. That's like defining "boxing" as "striking with a closed fist," and pretending that therefore a street fight is "boxing," or even tying someone up and punching them repeatedly is "boxing."

It's pretty obvious what's going on: the refusal to even acknowledge that a difference exists between back-handing a kid in anger and spanking them as a calm, last-ditch effort as discipline. As long as you can keep on pretending that any physical striking of a child is automatically abuse, you can avoid examining your irrational emotional reaction, and thus avoid possibly having to admit to yourself that you are wrong.

So go on pretending that all punching is "boxing," and all flailing in water is "swimming," and all argument is "debate." But you might want to turn in your "freethinker" badge if you're planning to wander through life with blinders on.

But what you seem to be missing (or refuse to acknowledge) is that many people (including pediatricians, psychologists as mentioned in the linked articles) do not find your methods or redefinition acceptable or beneficial either. I do not believe in spanking, period. On the butt or in the face, spanking, spanking has no place. In a rage or with great thought, spanking, spanking is for naught.

 

[Davka]

It's not special pleading. It's a clear definition, indented to stop the silly "you think spanking is sometimes acceptable therefore you think it's OK to slap a child in the face or otherwise abuse them" bullshit. I swear, the inability of posters on this thread to reason is downright frightening.

And yet, I did not see that in the articles that were referenced. You seem to be drawing a line between the location of the spank. The articles seem to be implying that it is irrelevent and are referring to spanking in general.

And yet the location and circumstances are precisely what allows us to differentiate between "spanking" and "hitting." There is a reason that there are different words for different things. You don't want to admit that a difference exists, because then you'd have to admit that your argument is deeply flawed - as are those studies. The overly-broad definition in those studies applies equally to parents who spank as we did, and parents who backhand their kids and randomly hit them whenever and wherever they please.

If you still refuse to acknowledge a difference, then it's pretty clear you're not only being obtuse, but actively denying reality. Why would you do that? Why, pray tell, would so many people so desperately cling to the fiction that all loosely-related words are actually synonymous?

 

[Davka]

I defined "Spanking as discipline." It is defined as quite different from "smacking upside the head," or "delivering a dope slap," or "hitting," or "beating," or any of the other terms used here by deliberately obtuse, apparently ignorant posters.

The definition given in those studies, "hitting with an open hand," is far too broad. It encompasses "spanking as discipline,' sure, but it does not differentiate between what I described and back-handing a kid in a grocery store. That's like defining "boxing" as "striking with a closed fist," and pretending that therefore a street fight is "boxing," or even tying someone up and punching them repeatedly is "boxing."

It's pretty obvious what's going on: the refusal to even acknowledge that a difference exists between back-handing a kid in anger and spanking them as a calm, last-ditch effort as discipline. As long as you can keep on pretending that any physical striking of a child is automatically abuse, you can avoid examining your irrational emotional reaction, and thus avoid possibly having to admit to yourself that you are wrong.

So go on pretending that all punching is "boxing," and all flailing in water is "swimming," and all argument is "debate." But you might want to turn in your "freethinker" badge if you're planning to wander through life with blinders on.

But what you seem to be missing (or refuse to acknowledge) is that many people (including pediatricians, psychologists as mentioned in the linked articles) do not find your methods or redefinition acceptable or beneficial either. I do not believe in spanking, period. On the butt or in the face, spanking, spanking has no place. In a rage or with great thought, spanking, spanking is for naught.

I don't actually give a flying fuck what "experts" in child-rearing have to say. The bias within the child psychiatric community is clear and obvious, as exemplified by the fact that 99% of all so-called "spanking" studies deliberately define spanking so broadly that it includes all sorts of abuse. And even then, the best many of them can do is say that it is neither harmful nor helpful - a frustrating result to get when you're trying for a pre-ordained conclusion.

As for what you personally believe, that's your choice. You can raise your kids however you want. just don't try to force your beliefs on other people, mmmkay?

 

[beero1000]

In no other argument anywhere on this board would you agree as acceptable the self-serving changing of the definition of a word, yet you are put out because we are not going to agree to your special-pleading redefinition of spanking here.

Spanking = hitting by definition

I am sorry if that fact makes you uncomfortable.

Actually, I'm not. I wish it made every parent who *spanks* uncomfortable enough to stop hitting their kid under the misguided belief it constitutes "discipline"

It's not special pleading. It's a clear definition, indented to stop the silly "you think spanking is sometimes acceptable therefore you think it's OK to slap a child in the face or otherwise abuse them" bullshit. I swear, the inability of posters on this thread to reason is downright frightening.

I think that knife cuts both ways. You seem to be very emotionally invested in this topic and you have to admit that that could possibly be clouding your judgement.

The (Merriam-Webster) definition of "to spank" is "to strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand". It is literally defined as striking. You might try to define a subcategory of "disciplinary spanking" to try and distinguish your particular brand of spanking, but that is not helpful against arguments that spanking (without consent ) is never OK.

As far as I can tell, arguments for spanking generally fall into categories:

1. In the context of spanking, striking a child is not a negative action.
2. In some situations, spanking is effective in ways that no other disciplinary action is, and therefore the positives outweigh the negatives. (i.e. spanking isn't OK, but in practice sometimes it's the best of bad options)
3. Spanking is a net negative, but it is a parent's prerogative to raise their children in any (legal) way they see fit.

You seem to be arguing #2. Your basic argument seems to be "it worked for me" and "all the research contrary to my position is biased". That is not particularly original for people with no actual support for their arguments, and is the same type of backing anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists have. You're right, there probably hasn't been specific research into your specific spanking procedure, so no, it has not been conclusively proved to be ineffective. On the other hand, the 'you haven't proved this specific version wrong' argument isn't very inspiring, especially when there are a priori reasons to expect striking a child to have negative effects.

 

[Jokodo]

But what you seem to be missing (or refuse to acknowledge) is that many people (including pediatricians, psychologists as mentioned in the linked articles) do not find your methods or redefinition acceptable or beneficial either. I do not believe in spanking, period. On the butt or in the face, spanking, spanking has no place. In a rage or with great thought, spanking, spanking is for naught.

I don't actually give a flying fuck what "experts" in child-rearing have to say. The bias within the child psychiatric community is clear and obvious, as exemplified by the fact that 99% of all so-called "spanking" studies deliberately define spanking so broadly that it includes all sorts of abuse. And even then, the best many of them can do is say that it is neither harmful nor helpful - a frustrating result to get when you're trying for a pre-ordained conclusion.

As for what you personally believe, that's your choice. You can raise your kids however you want. just don't try to force your beliefs on other people, mmmkay?

Let's see what we get if we apply this kind of reasoning to any other domain:

I don't actually give a flying fuck what "experts" in child-rearing paleo-anthropology have to say. The bias within the child psychiatric biological community is clear and obvious, as exemplified by the fact that 99% of all so-called "spanking" evolution studies deliberately define spanking evolution so broadly that it includes all sorts of abuse standard, uncontroversial cases of micro-evolutionary adaptation. And even then, the best many of them can do is say that it is neither harmful nor helpful can't be excluded- a frustrating result to get when you're trying for a pre-ordained conclusion.​

This, coming from the guy who accuses the other side in this debate to act like Young Earth Creationists.

Really, if your best argument is that "99% of so-called experts are in on the conspiracy, but I can see through them with my CommonSense(TM)", it's usually time to reconsider your position.