Discipline for children

[Toni]

I'm sorry, but can you explain why slapping someone hard on the butt is different than slapping someone hard in the face?

I'm sorry, but can you explain why forcing a child to stay in their room is different from forcing someone to stay in your room?

One is trying to teach the child that what they did was wrong and the other is kidnapping?

You're very, very close to answering your own question here. Why don't you think on it just a little bit longer?

The point of spanking is to cause pain. The rump is preferred because you won't leave a visible mark for others to see.

So the difference between spanking a rump and slapping a face is to be able to physically hurt your child without anyone being able to tell.

The point of forcing a child to stay in their room is to cause unhappiness and mental pain by depriving them of freedom. Their room is preferred so that other people don't know they're being deprived of their freedom and being made to suffer mental pain. So the difference between forcing a child to stay in their room and forcing them to stay in someone else's room is being able to deprive them of their freedom and cause them mental pain without any one else knowing about it.

Have you raised children?

The point of sending a child to his or her room is to remove the child from whatever situation is causing the problem and/or to give the child an opportunity to be in a quiet environment so that the child can calm down and compose him/herself. Child is provoking sibling or pet: remove child. Child is climbing furniture: remove child. Child is having a melt down: remove child, probably also encourage child to take nap.

Depending on situation and age of the child.
It's not to cause the child 'mental pain.' Unless you are a sadist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The point of spanking is to cause pain. The rump is preferred because you won't leave a visible mark for others to see.

So the difference between spanking a rump and slapping a face is to be able to physically hurt your child without anyone being able to tell.

The point of forcing a child to stay in their room is to cause unhappiness and mental pain by depriving them of freedom.

You do realize that is a massive stretch right? The whole "mental pain" is a farce, and would be hilarious if you weren't juxtapositioning a timeout with mental abuse, something that creates actual "mental pain".

Their room is preferred so that other people don't know they're being deprived of their freedom and being made to suffer mental pain.

LOL. Doesn't have to be their room. Could be the stairs, a corner, perhaps even the dungeon. But none of these locations are selected to hide that you are giving a child a timeout.

So the difference between forcing a child to stay in their room and forcing them to stay in someone else's room is being able to deprive them of their freedom and cause them mental pain without any one else knowing about it.

So all you have is trying to create an absurd parallel, while ignorant relevent context, and hope it sticks. Muiridi of old.

Don't worry though. Feel free to hit your own kids if you want.

 

[laughing dog]

The point of forcing a child to stay in their room is to cause unhappiness and mental pain by depriving them of freedom.

You are confusing discipline with punishment. And the point of discipline is not to cause mental pain or even unhappiness.

Their room is preferred so that other people don't know they're being deprived of their freedom and being made to suffer mental pain. So the difference between forcing a child to stay in their room and forcing them to stay in someone else's room is being able to deprive them of their freedom and cause them mental pain without any one else knowing about it.

Nonsense. The point is to get them to be by themselves to reflect upon what has happened in a safe environment.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sorry, but can you explain why slapping someone hard on the butt is different than slapping someone hard in the face?

I'm sorry, but can you explain why forcing a child to stay in their room is different from forcing someone to stay in your room?

One is trying to teach the child that what they did was wrong and the other is kidnapping?

You're very, very close to answering your own question here. Why don't you think on it just a little bit longer?

The point of spanking is to cause pain. The rump is preferred because you won't leave a visible mark for others to see.

So the difference between spanking a rump and slapping a face is to be able to physically hurt your child without anyone being able to tell.

The point of forcing a child to stay in their room is to cause unhappiness and mental pain by depriving them of freedom. Their room is preferred so that other people don't know they're being deprived of their freedom and being made to suffer mental pain. So the difference between forcing a child to stay in their room and forcing them to stay in someone else's room is being able to deprive them of their freedom and cause them mental pain without any one else knowing about it.

Have you raised children?

The point of sending a child to his or her room is to remove the child from whatever situation is causing the problem and/or to give the child an opportunity to be in a quiet environment so that the child can calm down and compose him/herself. Child is provoking sibling or pet: remove child. Child is climbing furniture: remove child. Child is having a melt down: remove child, probably also encourage child to take nap.

Depending on situation and age of the child.
It's not to cause the child 'mental pain.' Unless you are a sadist.

Are you claiming that there is absolutely no element of punishment involved in sending a child to their room? None whatsoever?

If the sole purpose of spanking is to cause pain, then it's equally true to say that the purpose forcing a child to stay in their room, and not allowing them to leave that room, is to cause them mental anguish and deprive them of their freedom.

If, however, you would like to claim that there's a greater purpose behind the mental anguish that the child feels when they experience the mental anguish that you inflict on them by depriving them of freedom and forcing them to stay in their room instead of doing what they wish... then I think that you should also admit that there is also a greater purpose to spanking, and that the purpose is not solely to cause pain.

 

[Toni]

I'm sorry, but can you explain why slapping someone hard on the butt is different than slapping someone hard in the face?

I'm sorry, but can you explain why forcing a child to stay in their room is different from forcing someone to stay in your room?

One is trying to teach the child that what they did was wrong and the other is kidnapping?

You're very, very close to answering your own question here. Why don't you think on it just a little bit longer?

The point of spanking is to cause pain. The rump is preferred because you won't leave a visible mark for others to see.

So the difference between spanking a rump and slapping a face is to be able to physically hurt your child without anyone being able to tell.

The point of forcing a child to stay in their room is to cause unhappiness and mental pain by depriving them of freedom. Their room is preferred so that other people don't know they're being deprived of their freedom and being made to suffer mental pain. So the difference between forcing a child to stay in their room and forcing them to stay in someone else's room is being able to deprive them of their freedom and cause them mental pain without any one else knowing about it.

Have you raised children?

The point of sending a child to his or her room is to remove the child from whatever situation is causing the problem and/or to give the child an opportunity to be in a quiet environment so that the child can calm down and compose him/herself. Child is provoking sibling or pet: remove child. Child is climbing furniture: remove child. Child is having a melt down: remove child, probably also encourage child to take nap.

Depending on situation and age of the child.
It's not to cause the child 'mental pain.' Unless you are a sadist.

Are you claiming that there is absolutely no element of punishment involved in sending a child to their room? None whatsoever?

If the sole purpose of spanking is to cause pain, then it's equally true to say that the purpose forcing a child to stay in their room, and not allowing them to leave that room, is to cause them mental anguish and deprive them of their freedom.

If, however, you would like to claim that there's a greater purpose behind the mental anguish that the child feels when they experience the mental anguish that you inflict on them by depriving them of freedom and forcing them to stay in their room instead of doing what they wish... then I think that you should also admit that there is also a greater purpose to spanking, and that the purpose is not solely to cause pain.

I don't think the purpose of sending a child to his or her room is to inflict mental anguish. Rather, it's to provide the child a chance to calm down, to regain self control and/or respite from whatever stimulation/situation was causing the bad behavior. No parent in his/her right mind wants a child to associate their bedroom with mental anguish, as you call or or anything else negative. A child's bedroom should be a calm, peaceful place. This is why my kids' bedrooms were free from electronics (once there became a 'thing' to have electronics for kids and in their rooms) and a lot of clutter. Mostly books, puzzles, cuddly toys, etc. The noisier or more active stuff was kept and used elsewhere, as was the messier stuff. I wasn't crazy enough to let my kids have paints and markers unsupervised in their bedrooms...

For older kids, yes, part of the purpose is to remove privilege--if you cannot behave decently at the dinner table, then you can go to your room until you can. At which time, you are welcome to make yourself a sandwich. If you insist on tormenting your brother while he works on his math homework, you can go to your room until dinner. Or so on.

Mental anguish? No. Logical consequence, separation from situation to allow child to calm down and also to keep the child from inflicting their bad behavior on the rest of the household when necessary.

Maybe my kids were just not that fragile.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm sorry, but can you explain why slapping someone hard on the butt is different than slapping someone hard in the face?

I'm sorry, but can you explain why forcing a child to stay in their room is different from forcing someone to stay in your room?

One is trying to teach the child that what they did was wrong and the other is kidnapping?

You're very, very close to answering your own question here. Why don't you think on it just a little bit longer?

The point of spanking is to cause pain. The rump is preferred because you won't leave a visible mark for others to see.

So the difference between spanking a rump and slapping a face is to be able to physically hurt your child without anyone being able to tell.

The point of forcing a child to stay in their room is to cause unhappiness and mental pain by depriving them of freedom. Their room is preferred so that other people don't know they're being deprived of their freedom and being made to suffer mental pain. So the difference between forcing a child to stay in their room and forcing them to stay in someone else's room is being able to deprive them of their freedom and cause them mental pain without any one else knowing about it.

Have you raised children?

The point of sending a child to his or her room is to remove the child from whatever situation is causing the problem and/or to give the child an opportunity to be in a quiet environment so that the child can calm down and compose him/herself. Child is provoking sibling or pet: remove child. Child is climbing furniture: remove child. Child is having a melt down: remove child, probably also encourage child to take nap.

Depending on situation and age of the child.
It's not to cause the child 'mental pain.' Unless you are a sadist.

Are you claiming that there is absolutely no element of punishment involved in sending a child to their room? None whatsoever?

If the sole purpose of spanking is to cause pain, then it's equally true to say that the purpose forcing a child to stay in their room, and not allowing them to leave that room, is to cause them mental anguish and deprive them of their freedom.

If, however, you would like to claim that there's a greater purpose behind the mental anguish that the child feels when they experience the mental anguish that you inflict on them by depriving them of freedom and forcing them to stay in their room instead of doing what they wish... then I think that you should also admit that there is also a greater purpose to spanking, and that the purpose is not solely to cause pain.

I don't think the purpose of sending a child to his or her room is to inflict mental anguish. Rather, it's to provide the child a chance to calm down, to regain self control and/or respite from whatever stimulation/situation was causing the bad behavior. No parent in his/her right mind wants a child to associate their bedroom with mental anguish, as you call or or anything else negative. A child's bedroom should be a calm, peaceful place. This is why my kids' bedrooms were free from electronics (once there became a 'thing' to have electronics for kids and in their rooms) and a lot of clutter. Mostly books, puzzles, cuddly toys, etc. The noisier or more active stuff was kept and used elsewhere, as was the messier stuff. I wasn't crazy enough to let my kids have paints and markers unsupervised in their bedrooms...

For older kids, yes, part of the purpose is to remove privilege--if you cannot behave decently at the dinner table, then you can go to your room until you can. At which time, you are welcome to make yourself a sandwich. If you insist on tormenting your brother while he works on his math homework, you can go to your room until dinner. Or so on.

Mental anguish? No. Logical consequence, separation from situation to allow child to calm down and also to keep the child from inflicting their bad behavior on the rest of the household when necessary.

Maybe my kids were just not that fragile.

Its not the enforcer/authority that determines whether it is discipline or punishment. Its the child.

No one here has gotten inside the heads of those receiving things from authorities which is a shame.

 

[laughing dog]

If the sole purpose of spanking is to cause pain, then it's equally true to say that the purpose forcing a child to stay in their room, and not allowing them to leave that room, is to cause them mental anguish and deprive them of their freedom.

That is extremely poor reasoning. Spanking does cause pain (regardless of the intent) while sending someone to the room need not cause mental anguish.

And the notion that sending a child to her/his room necessarily causes mental anguish is ridiculous. Frankly, I liked being sent to my room because it meant no one would bother me for awhile.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the sole purpose of spanking is to cause pain, then it's equally true to say that the purpose forcing a child to stay in their room, and not allowing them to leave that room, is to cause them mental anguish and deprive them of their freedom.

That is extremely poor reasoning. Spanking does cause pain (regardless of the intent) while sending someone to the room need not cause mental anguish.

Being disappointed is not "mental anguish"!

And the notion that sending a child to her/his room necessarily causes mental anguish is ridiculous. Frankly, I liked being sent to my room because it meant no one would bother me for awhile.

Lucky you. I had to go to the stairs.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not the enforcer/authority that determines whether it is discipline or punishment. Its the child.

No one here has gotten inside the heads of those receiving things from authorities which is a shame.

Having been a child that received timeouts as discipline, spanked as discipline, and hit just because my mother was angry, I think your statement is full of crap.

 

[Emily Lake]

Having been a child that received timeouts as discipline, spanked as discipline, and hit just because my mother was angry, I think your statement is full of crap.

I notice that you draw a distinction between being spanked as discipline and being hit because your mother was angry. I presume, therefore, that a difference does exist?

I also notice that you presume that being disappointed is not mental anguish... you downplay the mental effect of being deprived of freedom and being confined. I assume that you do so because the effects of such confinement are short-lived, and don't "permanently" scar a child's psyche. But a swat on the rump is also an extremely short-lived and transient pain, and doesn't permanently scar a child in any fashion.

Smacking a kid across the face, however, can leave actual damage. Beating a kid to excess and repeatedly can cause physical trauma. By similar token, repeatedly locking a child in their room and depriving them of their freedom for extended periods of time can be mentally devastating and cause severe mental damage.

The problem that I have with your approach throughout this discussion, as well as the approach of many other people, is that you continue to treat any and all spankings as if they are indistinguishable in effect from the most abusive beatings imaginable. And yet you simultaneously seem to assume that all non-physical punishments are completely benign and non-damaging. You repeatedly cast all spankings as "beating" and "hitting", but you cast confinement as nothing more than "time-outs" as if nothing more severe is even imaginable.

You're not treating the actions in a comparable fashion. You're not considering them fairly.

 

[laughing dog]

By similar token, repeatedly locking a child in their room and depriving them of their freedom for extended periods of time can be mentally devastating and cause severe mental damage.

Why would anyone assume that sending a child to their room entails locking the door? And why the persistent misleading "depriving them of their freedom"?

Your approach of distorting the notion of discipline and its effects along with minimizing the effects of violent punishment means the comparisons are uneven. And you seem incapable of comprehending that spanking is a form of violence (albeit low level in most instances). Spanking children teaches them that violence is an appropriate form of discipline. Society does not endorse violence as a form of discipline for adults or even dogs. Yet, there are some who endorse it for children. Go figure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Having been a child that received timeouts as discipline, spanked as discipline, and hit just because my mother was angry, I think your statement is full of crap.

I notice that you draw a distinction between being spanked as discipline and being hit because your mother was angry. I presume, therefore, that a difference does exist?

Of course.

I also notice that you presume that being disappointed is not mental anguish... you downplay the mental effect of being deprived of freedom and being confined.

Not downplay, keep in proper perspective. You do know what proper perspective is right?

I assume that you do so because the effects of such confinement are short-lived, and don't "permanently" scar a child's psyche. But a swat on the rump is also an extremely short-lived and transient pain, and doesn't permanently scar a child in any fashion.

You assume too much.

Smacking a kid across the face, however, can leave actual damage.

You mean evidence?

Beating a kid to excess and repeatedly can cause physical trauma. By similar token, repeatedly locking a child in their room and depriving them of their freedom for extended periods of time can be mentally devastating and cause severe mental damage.

And if we were talking about locking a child in their room "repeatedly" maybe there wouldn't be a strawman. You are equating a timeout with imprisonment.

As others have tried to explain in vain to you is that a timeout isn't about putting a kid into imprisonment. It is placing a misbehaving child in a quiet environment to ponder about what they have done, what they should do, and calm down. The purpose of spanking is to do the same general thing, via physical pain and fear.

The problem that I have with your approach throughout this discussion, as well as the approach of many other people, is that you continue to treat any and all spankings as if they are indistinguishable in effect from the most abusive beatings imaginable.

That would be your strawman.

And yet you simultaneously seem to assume that all non-physical punishments are completely benign and non-damaging.

That would be another one of your strawmen. Certainly it is possible abuse your children mentally by being way too overbearing on timeouts, like locking your child in a closet for a day for being naughty. But seeing no one is discussing that imprisoning your child is kosher, it is a derail by you.

You repeatedly cast all spankings as "beating" and "hitting", but you cast confinement as nothing more than "time-outs" as if nothing more severe is even imaginable.

Did you just raise an issue with calling a spanking "hitting"? Spanking is about causing pain as punishment and fear as a deterrent. Sure, spanking isn't as bad as dropping an anvil on your child, but is the bar to be set so low?

You're not treating the actions in a comparable fashion. You're not considering them fairly.

I'm comparing a spanking to a timeout. You want to compare spanking to gross psychological abuse. Talk about being fair.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm comparing a spanking to a timeout.

Up until now, you haven't been comparing spanking to a timeout, or if you have been intending to do so you have failed in that endeavor. Up until now, it has appeared that you've been treating all spanking as abuse. And abuse is certainly not comparable to a timeout.

Spanking is about causing pain as punishment and fear as a deterrent.

No, that's where you keep going wrong. You're only half right. Spanking is about causing temporary fleeting minor pain as a deterrent. It is NOT about creating fear.

Do you understand why we have a pain response in the first place, biologically and evolutionarily speaking? Pain is the single most effective way our brains have of learning "Don't do that". Both physical and emotional pain, bad tastes, foul smells, unpleasantness in general all translate to "Stay away, don't do this thing".

All the various punishments that have been presented leverage that response. They all rely on the same mechanism of "This is unpleasant, I want to avoid this consequence, so I should avoid the action that caused it".

• Children don't like having their toys taken away - it causes them unpleasantness and emotional distress. They adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.
• Children don't like being deprived of freedom of movement - it causes them emotional distress. Tehy adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.
• Children don't like being deprived of dinner - it causes them intestinal unpleasantness. They adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.
• Children don't like being spanked - it causes them physical unpleasantness. They adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.

There is no actual difference in these mechanisms. They are all pain avoidance, they are simply different types of pain. Physical pain is not something so completely "other" that it needs a completely different category. In many ways, it is more easily understood than many of the others presented - it is more immediate, and requires less higher reasoning to connect to the action.

If you wish to say that children should be spanked sparingly, I'm 100% in agreement. If you wish to place limitations on what constitutes a spanking, and how frequently it is appropriate to administer them, I have no issue with that.

But to take a stance that it is absolutely always completely unacceptable to ever spank a child because... violence? No. I'ts a faulty argument based on nothing more than emotional reactions.

Violence is a natural part of our species, and of human society. If you think it isn't, then you haven't been paying attention. Professional football. Boxing. MMA. Soccer. Rugby. Hockey. Wrestling. Roller Derby. Not to mention, Military service and Police service.

US society disallows the punishment of adults via physical means as a decision of law, but there is no inherent reason that this is wrong. Many other cultures allow for physical punishment by law.

Is your claim that US culture is the only "right" culture, and that all other cultures are morally destitute and inferior?

 

[laughing dog]

No, that's where you keep going wrong. You're only half right. Spanking is about causing temporary fleeting minor pain as a deterrent. It is NOT about creating fear.

No, you are wrong: spanking does tend to create fear.

As a society we do not condone violence as discipline or punishment for adults or for pets, yet some people seem to feel that it is okay for children. Wow.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Up until now, you haven't been comparing spanking to a timeout, or if you have been intending to do so you have failed in that endeavor. Up until now, it has appeared that you've been treating all spanking as abuse. And abuse is certainly not comparable to a timeout.

Ummm... no.

Spanking is about causing pain as punishment and fear as a deterrent.

No, that's where you keep going wrong. You're only half right. Spanking is about causing temporary fleeting minor pain as a deterrent. It is NOT about creating fear.

1) Fleeting minor pain? I don't remember a spanking as being minor. Perhaps fleeting as the sting does go away in not too long a period of time.
2) Not about fear? We fear pain as a species. You are causing pain in order for the child to think twice the next time, else more pain. I mean, otherwise, the pain would be about a judicial code. You were mean to your sister, therefore two doses of pain. With the application of pain, the sister sees justice. No... it is about the fear instilled to make the child do it again.

Do you understand why we have a pain response in the first place, biologically and evolutionarily speaking? Pain is the single most effective way our brains have of learning "Don't do that". Both physical and emotional pain, bad tastes, foul smells, unpleasantness in general all translate to "Stay away, don't do this thing".

All the various punishments that have been presented leverage that response. They all rely on the same mechanism of "This is unpleasant, I want to avoid this consequence, so I should avoid the action that caused it".

Then why not have the adult fart instead? Unpleasant smell, same outcome, right?

• Children don't like having their toys taken away - it causes them unpleasantness and emotional distress. They adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.
• Children don't like being deprived of freedom of movement - it causes them emotional distress. Tehy adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.
• Children don't like being deprived of dinner - it causes them intestinal unpleasantness. They adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.
• Children don't like being spanked - it causes them physical unpleasantness. They adjust their behavior to avoid that unpleasantness.

Toys taken away causes "emotion distress"?! Seriously, go to a dictionary website and look up the word hyperbole. If you don't see under the defintion "See muiridi" , send them an email. You are abusing words here.

There is no actual difference in these mechanisms.

Actually there are notable differences you continue to ignore. Such as the separating the child from the environment to help calm a situation. The parent spanking the child isn't going to calm the environment.

If you wish to say that children should be spanked sparingly, I'm 100% in agreement. If you wish to place limitations on what constitutes a spanking, and how frequently it is appropriate to administer them, I have no issue with that.

A child should only be spanked if they helped a terrorist blow up an American asset.

But to take a stance that it is absolutely always completely unacceptable to ever spank a child because... violence? No. I'ts a faulty argument based on nothing more than emotional reactions.

I agree... the whole terrorism example above and all.

Violence is a natural part of our species, and of human society. If you think it isn't, then you haven't been paying attention. Professional football. Boxing. MMA. Soccer. Rugby. Hockey. Wrestling. Roller Derby. Not to mention, Military service and Police service.

I must have missed it where breaking a rule in a Football game led to a spanking.

US society disallows the punishment of adults via physical means as a decision of law, but there is no inherent reason that this is wrong. Many other cultures allow for physical punishment by law.

Is your claim that US culture is the only "right" culture, and that all other cultures are morally destitute and inferior?

Jesus fucking Christ! Are you saying that the Battle of Bulge was for naught because of American Cultural value differences with those among the Tutsi in Rwanda, where, if I remind you were killed in the hundreds of thousands, related to the price of beans in Perus, of course?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, that's where you keep going wrong. You're only half right. Spanking is about causing temporary fleeting minor pain as a deterrent. It is NOT about creating fear.

No, you are wrong: spanking does tend to create fear.

And sending a child to their room tends to mental anguish.

Therefore timeouts are all about causing mental anguish, right? Maybe you wish to check your language?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, you are wrong: spanking does tend to create fear.

And sending a child to their room tends to mental anguish.

Therefore timeouts are all about causing mental anguish, right? Maybe you wish to check your language?

Plan A

1) Make ridiculous claim.
2) Get refuted.
3) Repeat same ridiculous claim.

Plan A (Alt.)

1) Make ridiculous claim.
2) Get refuted.
3) Repeat same ridiculous claim by trying to equate the ridiculous claim with the refutation.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you are wrong: spanking does tend to create fear.

And sending a child to their room tends to mental anguish.

Only in the most trivial sense of the term.

Therefore timeouts are all about causing mental anguish, right? Maybe you wish to check your language?

No, they are not. Nor did I claim spankings "were all about" anything. There is no perhaps about this: you need to actually think before your post.

I still find it fascinating that while society does not condone the use of violence (include spanking) to discipline or punish adults or dogs, there are people who do condone it to discipline or punish children.

 

[Emily Lake]

And sending a child to their room tends to mental anguish.

Only in the most trivial sense of the term.

Therefore timeouts are all about causing mental anguish, right? Maybe you wish to check your language?

No, they are not. Nor did I claim spankings "were all about" anything.

No, you just happily jumped up to support someone else's claim that it was all about causing fear. In so doing, you tacitly claim that it is about causing fear.

Please review:

Spanking is about causing pain as punishment and fear as a deterrent.

No, that's where you keep going wrong. You're only half right. Spanking is about causing temporary fleeting minor pain as a deterrent. It is NOT about creating fear.

See- at this point, Jimmy is addressing the intent of spanking, the reason that the parent engages in spanking. This is also what I have addressed in my response to him.

You, however, jump in and shift the emphasis in your response:

No, you are wrong: spanking does tend to create fear.

You are addressing the potential effect - you've shifted perspective from that of the parent to that of the child.

This is also what I did in my response to you:

[And sending a child to their room tends to mental anguish.

So, to recap: you jumped in to support someone else's claim, and also shifted the perspective. Then when I responded to you with a perspective that matches yours, you shifted back with the defense that you didn't actually make a claim.

Furthermore, you claim that any mental anguish experienced by a child is only the most trivial sort... and in so doing you are implying that any fear experienced is non-trivial. I disagree, and I believe that the fear experienced in most spankings, just as in most time-outs, is of only the most trivial sort. It is sufficient to trigger avoidance behavior - just as the anguish of timeout is sufficient to trigger avoidance behavior. But it is insufficient to produce damage, just as the mental anguish of timeout is insufficient to produce damage.

 

[laughing dog]

Only in the most trivial sense of the term.

Therefore timeouts are all about causing mental anguish, right? Maybe you wish to check your language?

No, they are not. Nor did I claim spankings "were all about" anything.

No, you just happily jumped up to support someone else's claim that it was all about causing fear.

You admit one straw man while creating another. Wow.

In so doing, you tacitly claim that it is about causing fear.

That conclusion is unfounded in reason.

You are addressing the potential effect - you've shifted perspective from that of the parent to that of the child.

And your point is...? BTW, if you talk to spankers, many times, the intent is to create fear.

So, to recap: you jumped in to support someone else's claim, and also shifted the perspective. Then when I responded to you with a perspective that matches yours, you shifted back with the defense that you didn't actually make a claim.

That is literally hallucinatory in nature.

Furthermore, you claim that any mental anguish experienced by a child is only the most trivial sort... and in so doing you are implying that any fear experienced is non-trivial.

You erroneously conflate "imply" with "ridiculously infer".

I disagree, and I believe that the fear experienced in most spankings, just as in most time-outs, is of only the most trivial sort. It is sufficient to trigger avoidance behavior - just as the anguish of timeout is sufficient to trigger avoidance behavior. But it is insufficient to produce damage, just as the mental anguish of timeout is insufficient to produce damage.

You are entitled to delusions beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

BTW, if you talk to spankers, many times, the intent is to create fear.

Then it should be easy for you to find one, just one, in this thread.