Discipline for children

[RavenSky]

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.

Please quote, with link, anyone who said "you think spanking is sometimes acceptable therefore you think it's OK to slap a child in the face or otherwise abuse them"

What is being said repeatedly, is that spanking IS, by DEFINITION, hitting/slapping/striking another person.

You claim that you have "defined" spanking, but you have not. What you have done is set forth your own rules for hitting your child, while denying that spanking IS hitting them.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Again, you are dancing around what "spanking" in fact is. Moreover, you are trying to redefine "spanking" as "discipline" when it is not. It is a form of punishment, though. Or, perhaps to be more clear, it is a form of punishment that 'may' achieve obedience (or may achieve the opposite) but will never achieve self-discipline, which should be the goal in raising children.

The only person refusing to acknowledge what "spanking" is continues to be you; and for all you wish to accuse everyone else of having an emotional over-reaction, I continue to think it is you that is emotionally over-reacting. I do sincerely believe that you are a good person who raised his children with love and the very best intentions, but I also think somewhere deep inside you is that niggling realization that spanking was not your shining parenting moment, and it is upsetting you.

I understand that. I spanked my own child twice. I've acknowledged that is was a poor choice on my part, and I do not try to justify or defend my actions. I have, however, forgiven myself for those relatively minor mistakes.

 

[Sajara]

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.

This in a nut-shell is how I was raised. I believe I'm an upstanding citizen, parent, husband, etc....

Well-said Davka, especially about the inconsistency in parenting.

 

[bleubird]

My father had "the belt". He use it sparingly.The threat of the belt was very effective.
'It is bedtime!Oh,just one more show?Just seeing him pull his belt out was enough to make us go to bed.
Terror?Abuse?
50's and 60's blue collar catholic household,normal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My father had "the belt". He use it sparingly.The threat of the belt was very effective.
'It is bedtime!Oh,just one more show?Just seeing him pull his belt out was enough to make us go to bed.
Terror?Abuse?
50's and 60's blue collar catholic household,normal.

Just like it was normal to have one of the nuns whack you with a ruler if you were acting out in class.
Just like it was normal to smack the wife around a bit if she got lippy.
Just like it was normal to get some guys together and beat on some uppity negro if he started sniffing around one of the nice white girls in the neighourhood.
Just like it was normal to bash a guy half to death if someone saw him kissing another dude.

There are lots of things which used to be normal. That doesn't make any of them excusable if they're done today.

 

[Davka]

My father had "the belt". He use it sparingly.The threat of the belt was very effective.
'It is bedtime!Oh,just one more show?Just seeing him pull his belt out was enough to make us go to bed.
Terror?Abuse?
50's and 60's blue collar catholic household,normal.

Just like it was normal to have one of the nuns whack you with a ruler if you were acting out in class.
Just like it was normal to smack the wife around a bit if she got lippy.
Just like it was normal to get some guys together and beat on some uppity negro if he started sniffing around one of the nice white girls in the neighourhood.
Just like it was normal to bash a guy half to death if someone saw him kissing another dude.

There are lots of things which used to be normal. That doesn't make any of them excusable if they're done today.

Smoking pot used to be normal. Now it's illegal. Must be bad.
Long hair and beards used to be normal. Then they weren't. Then they were.

Sorry but "lots of things used to be normal" does not logically lead to "therefore they are inexcusable if done today."

Having said that, I agree that beating children with a belt is inexcusable. But not because "it used to be normal."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Just like it was normal to have one of the nuns whack you with a ruler if you were acting out in class.
Just like it was normal to smack the wife around a bit if she got lippy.
Just like it was normal to get some guys together and beat on some uppity negro if he started sniffing around one of the nice white girls in the neighourhood.
Just like it was normal to bash a guy half to death if someone saw him kissing another dude.

There are lots of things which used to be normal. That doesn't make any of them excusable if they're done today.

Smoking pot used to be normal. Now it's illegal. Must be bad.
Long hair and beards used to be normal. Then they weren't. Then they were.

Sorry but "lots of things used to be normal" does not logically lead to "therefore they are inexcusable if done today."

Having said that, I agree that beating children with a belt is inexcusable. But not because "it used to be normal."

Of course something having used to be normal doesn't lead to it being inexcusable. In the same vein, however, something having used to be normal doesn't make it excusable either. The fact that it used to be normal isn't a justification either for or against it.

 

[Davka]

Smoking pot used to be normal. Now it's illegal. Must be bad.
Long hair and beards used to be normal. Then they weren't. Then they were.

Sorry but "lots of things used to be normal" does not logically lead to "therefore they are inexcusable if done today."

Having said that, I agree that beating children with a belt is inexcusable. But not because "it used to be normal."

Of course something having used to be normal doesn't lead to it being inexcusable. In the same vein, however, something having used to be normal doesn't make it excusable either. The fact that it used to be normal isn't a justification either for or against it.

Yeah! And furthermore, the fact that I used to be normal doesn't make me excusable, either!

 

[Jokodo]

Of course something having used to be normal doesn't lead to it being inexcusable. In the same vein, however, something having used to be normal doesn't make it excusable either. The fact that it used to be normal isn't a justification either for or against it.

Yeah! And furthermore, the fact that I used to be normal doesn't make me excusable, either!

You're taking this way to personal.

 

[Emily Lake]

What is being said repeatedly, is that spanking IS, by DEFINITION, hitting/slapping/striking another person.

This is a problem of categorization, and it brings with it the risks and pitfalls of categorical errors.

Spanking is not, by definition, hitting. Spanking is, by definition, a subset of the class of hitting. Hitting encompasses many things that are most definitely not describable as spanking, but are still hitting: punching, slapping, walloping, beating, etc.

By attempting to falsely define spanking as exactly the same as hitting, you are attempting to present spanking as indistinguishable from any other thing that is also in the class of actions describable as hitting. You are attempting to make spanking identical to punching, slapping, beating, etc. In this fashion, you make all spanking indistinguishable from all assault, and can pretend that it's equally as bad.

Allow me to provide an example that is not so fraught with emotional content: dancing. By definition, ballet is dancing. There is no question that ballet is dancing. But ballet is not synonymous with tap dance. If you try to insist that ballet is tap dance, or that ballet is indistinguishable from tap dance, or to otherwise conflate the two, you are making a categorical error.

All ballet is dance; not all dance is ballet. In this same fashion, you can correctly say that all spanking is hitting, but not all hitting is spanking. And if you repeatedly attempt to direct the discussion so that you are characterizing the actions under discussion as "hitting" without regard for the specificity of the context, then you are being fallacious in your argumentation.

 

[Jokodo]

What is being said repeatedly, is that spanking IS, by DEFINITION, hitting/slapping/striking another person.

This is a problem of categorization, and it brings with it the risks and pitfalls of categorical errors.

Spanking is not, by definition, hitting. Spanking is, by definition, a subset of the class of hitting. Hitting encompasses many things that are most definitely not describable as spanking, but are still hitting: punching, slapping, walloping, beating, etc.

By attempting to falsely define spanking as exactly the same as hitting, you are attempting to present spanking as indistinguishable from any other thing that is also in the class of actions describable as hitting. You are attempting to make spanking identical to punching, slapping, beating, etc. In this fashion, you make all spanking indistinguishable from all assault, and can pretend that it's equally as bad.

Allow me to provide an example that is not so fraught with emotional content: dancing. By definition, ballet is dancing. There is no question that ballet is dancing. But ballet is not synonymous with tap dance. If you try to insist that ballet is tap dance, or that ballet is indistinguishable from tap dance, or to otherwise conflate the two, you are making a categorical error.

All ballet is dance; not all dance is ballet. In this same fashion, you can correctly say that all spanking is hitting, but not all hitting is spanking. And if you repeatedly attempt to direct the discussion so that you are characterizing the actions under discussion as "hitting" without regard for the specificity of the context, then you are being fallacious in your argumentation.

No one's done that: No one has said that spanking is indistinguishable from other forms of hitting. People have pointed out that spanking is a form of hitting, and Davka refused to acknowledge even that.

 

[RavenSky]

What is being said repeatedly, is that spanking IS, by DEFINITION, hitting/slapping/striking another person.

By attempting to falsely define spanking as exactly the same as hitting, you are attempting to...

Since I did NOT "attempt" to do that, the rest of your comments are misplaced

you are making a categorical error.

nope

you are being fallacious in your argumentation.

Nope, but you are getting tiresome in yours.

Buh bye

 

[Davka]

Yeah! And furthermore, the fact that I used to be normal doesn't make me excusable, either!

You're taking this way to personal.

That's impossible. This isn't the way to personal.

 

[credoconsolans]

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


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?

Nope.

That would indicate that humans have for at least throughout human history have been slow cognitively.

We were SO slow that we were cognitively unable to develop science and math and physics and philosophy and engineering...oh, wait...

- - - Updated - - -

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?

I never said it was the best option. I have said all along that it should BE an option.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

Not as "universal"? Says who? Not me. And not the 4th amendment to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers sure thought it was so common that they wanted to prevent it.

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.

We treat children as different, because children are not adults.

Without their consent, we:

discipline them
lock them up
restrain them
subject them to our rules and regulations
dress them according to our desires
feed them according to our desires
subject them to nationalistic, cultural, social, familial and/or religious brainwashing

I'm sure almost every single one of these is illegal if you force an adult to do it.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

In which case it follows that non-spanking techniques thus can be no better.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

Scary, isn't it?

Next, I can expect them to say that football players slapping each other on the butts is "assault" or hurting a little girl's head while combing tangles out her long hair is abuse and those who commit such acts should be imprisoned.

 

[credoconsolans]

It's strange, we never had to spank our kids a second time....

Which, of course, begs the question of how necessary it was to spank them the first time.

Perhaps trying to reason with them didn't help.

 

[thebeave]

We've had the spanking discussion on these boards before. As I remember, there were those who were adamantly against even an occasional spanking of their child (it was abuse, violence, etc), but had no problem with, or even advocated, mutilating the penis of their infant boys via circumcision. Mostly out of cosmetic or cultural reasons. Go figure.

 

[credoconsolans]

My friends who received spankings were more prone to using violence to solve problems, those that did not were not as prone to use violence.

This seems to be a common theme- when someone learns that violence can be used to shape behaviors, they use violence to shape behaviors. Now, I wasn't spanked past the age of 5, although I generally wanted to make my parents happy (until I was a teenager) because I loved them (except for a period of time while I was a teenager, when every single action they took was oppressive and evil- luckily they grew out of it).

I suggest you get a better quality of friends. Most all of my friends were spanked as children. None of them have ever so much as kicked a dog.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

In which case it follows that non-spanking techniques thus can be no better.

By what absurd logic is this supposed to follow? If some children who regularly eat vegetables develop deficiencies in some micronutrients, does it follow that eating vegetables does no good?