To spank or not to spank please vote

ebia · Jul 23, 2006

Hitting defenseless people and spanking a child are simply different.

Are you claiming you don't hit a child when spanking, or that the child isn't defenseless, or that the child isn't a person?

Truth is there are other options, but are they the best, most effective and efficient options.

Strike efficiency, which is somewhat of a dubious aim (depending on what one means by it), and I believe so, yes. (When practiced properly other means are...) more effective with adults, more effective at school, more effective in some homes. Of course they require training, practice and patience - no-one can sensibly say that effective discipline is easy or comes naturally.
It doesn't.

If people become adament that isolating a child is cruel, does that make it so?

This is a meaningless question. It's not my saying so that makes spanking cruel if it is. Either it's cruel or it's not. The purpose of the discussion is to attempt to find that out.

Pandersen said:
Children do well when they have discipline and order. They can then know how to behave.

Couldn't agree more.

TheUltimateWarrior · Jul 23, 2006

There is no substitute for a good spanking when it comes to discipline.

PETE_ · Jul 23, 2006

This is a meaningless question. It's not my saying so that makes spanking cruel if it is. Either it's cruel or it's not. The purpose of the discussion is to attempt to find that out.

What makes it cruel? Is it the infliction of pain on the child? Do motives change the verdict?

DivineRAiN · Jul 23, 2006

ebia: Our ever increasing prison populations are pretty good evidence that punishment doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work in schools, where it's the same kids being punished week after week. So I see little reason to suppose it works at home

k.. a lot of ppl are in prison for selling drugs & it's a situation that gets discussed a lot. We don't want our kids doing drugs, nor selling drugs. A 17yo kid makes more money in 1 day from selling than he would in a week from a legal job.. he'll keep doing what he's doing because of the money he makes. He's 18, and he gets busted.
After he does his time, he gets out n starts selling again.
Instead of prison, what alternative consequence would work better?
What would make him stop selling? Prison won't stop him, and you know that ppl are out here killing eachother for territory n other crap, so knowing that he could get shot n killed won't stop him.. what would?

TheUltimateWarrior · Jul 23, 2006

Prisons are proof that rehibiliation doesnt work, not that punishment doesnt work.

Prisons arent about punishment anymore, cable TV isnt punishment, unless they are forced to watch the view.

Punishment (like the death penalty) does work. Just ask those criminals who have been executed, they havent committed any other crimes.

ebia · Jul 24, 2006

Pandersen said:
What makes it cruel? Is it the infliction of pain on the child?

Yes.

Do motives change the verdict?

Motives are a factor. Outcomes and necessity are also factors.

ebia · Jul 24, 2006

TheUltimateWarrior said:
Prisons are proof that rehibiliation doesnt work, not that punishment doesnt work.

Prisons arent about punishment anymore, cable TV isnt punishment, unless they are forced to watch the view.

The only purpose of prison is punishment (however it is disguised); unless one incarcerates people forever it serves no other purpose. The money, time and effort spent on rehabilitation is insignificant to that which goes into the incarceration, let alone into trying to help at risk young people avoid getting into crime in the first place.

Punishment (like the death penalty) does work.

No it doesn't. The objective must be to create useful, productive, good members of society. The death penalty fails completely.
But even if I took your point, it isn't the punishment that "works" but that the effect is also preventative of further offense. That wouldn't apply to corporal punishment.

ebia · Jul 24, 2006

DivineRAiN said:
k.. a lot of ppl are in prison for selling drugs & it's a situation that gets discussed a lot. We don't want our kids doing drugs, nor selling drugs. A 17yo kid makes more money in 1 day from selling than he would in a week from a legal job.. he'll keep doing what he's doing because of the money he makes. He's 18, and he gets busted.
After he does his time, he gets out n starts selling again.
Instead of prison, what alternative consequence would work better?

As you say, prison isnt' working. As to what would - I couldn't say, it's not my area, but it is true that the tentative steps towards restorative justice that are starting to take place, where (for example) the offender has to meet with his victim(s), take responsibility for the damage done, and take steps to (ideally) repair some of that harm or (more feasibly) take on some other community service, do make a difference both for offender and victim. It's early days in developing this kind of stuff, and it's not easy to do, but it can hardly work less well or cost more than prisons which fail to deter and tend ot be training grounds for worse crimes. A discussion of restorative and other alternatives to retributive justice would make an interesting thread, but is drifthing off topic for this one except as applied to children.

quatona · Jul 24, 2006

Robinsegg said:
Here's where I got the idea someone said something to the effect of let's not discipline. I may have been reading into it, but I rather think no one likes to be disciplined. Therefor, quatona wouldn't like being disciplined, therefor, quatona probably wouldn't want a child being disciplined.

Yes, some call it the golden rule.

Children need boundaries, and at a young age most of them will be created by the parents. The parents have to find a way to enforce those boundaries. That means discipline for when the boundaries are crossed. This gives the child security, knowing that the boundaries are not to be crossed lightly, and that the adults in his/her life care enough about the child to enforce the given boundaries.

I agree with that, in this broad and abstract way. What I am discussing is what are the appropriate methods to grant those effects.

PETE_ · Jul 24, 2006

ebia said:
Yes.

Motives are a factor. Outcomes and necessity are also factors.

Then a doctor giving a shot to a child is being cruel? Of course not

His motive is to help the child just as a parents are doing. The pain is only temporary as is a spanking. There may be other cures, some shots are given to prevent disease even before one is there, which may make it seem worse, for you do not spank for what might happen.

Supporting one and condeming the other seems inconsistant.

ebia · Jul 24, 2006

Pandersen said:
Then a doctor giving a shot to a child is being cruel? Of course not

His motive is to help the child just as a parents are doing. The pain is only temporary as is a spanking. There may be other cures, some shots are given to prevent disease even before one is there, which may make it seem worse, for you do not spank for what might happen.

Supporting one and condeming the other seems inconsistant.

if vaccinations were ineffective and harmful, to continue to give them would be cruel

TheUltimateWarrior · Jul 24, 2006

ebia said:
if vaccinations were ineffective and harmful, to continue to give them would be cruel

Spankings arent ineffective though.

Taking away a Playstation or grounding them from the internet is ineffective.

Robinsegg · Jul 24, 2006

ebia said:
But even if I took your point, it isn't the punishment that "works" but that the effect is also preventative of further offense. That wouldn't apply to corporal punishment.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It looks like you're saying that knowing the punishment would come (and having experienced it once) would make the person not do the action resulting in punishment. And it also looks like you're saying that corporal punishment doesn't work to do that. Is that right?

Because it works exactly like that in my family. Granted, I make sure the child has a chance to change his/her attitude before implementing the punishment, and make sure he/she knows what will come if the attitude isn't changed. But most of the time, the reminder is an immediate attitude reversal with no action required. It is a preventative to further problems. It's a training tool. I use it very sparingly, and it works in that way.

Rachel

Robinsegg · Jul 24, 2006

Here's where I got the idea someone said something to the effect of let's not discipline. I may have been reading into it, but I rather think no one likes to be disciplined. Therefor, quatona wouldn't like being disciplined, therefor, quatona probably wouldn't want a child being disciplined.

Click to expand...

Yes, some call it the golden rule.

Children need boundaries, and at a young age most of them will be created by the parents. The parents have to find a way to enforce those boundaries. That means discipline for when the boundaries are crossed. This gives the child security, knowing that the boundaries are not to be crossed lightly, and that the adults in his/her life care enough about the child to enforce the given boundaries.

Click to expand...

I agree with that, in this broad and abstract way. What I am discussing is what are the appropriate methods to grant those effects.

What you seem to be saying is that "anything I wouldn't enjoy shouldn't be done to a child". Well, if the consequences aren't unpleasant, there's no reason not to display the behavior again. Theu, there is no enforcement of boundaries. There are children who grow up not understanding why they get traffic tickets or why they go to jail, because they've never experienced discipline (negative consequences, whatever they are). They're totally flummoxed when it occurs. Kids need negative, unpleasant consequences to learn self-discipline. They can be given more freedom with the more responsibility they take for themselves and for keeping themselves in line with the rules of society and your household.

If my original reading is correct, I don't see how to reconcile the two concepts.

Rachel

TheUltimateWarrior · Jul 24, 2006

Oh no, Punishment is a deterrent for crime. The Death penalty is the reason alot of people are alive and alot more arent on death row.

Robinsegg · Jul 24, 2006

ebia said:
Our ever increasing prison populations are pretty good evidence that punishment doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work in schools, where it's the same kids being punished week after week. So I see little reason to suppose it works at home.

Ah, but were they increasing like this when "hard labor" was involved? When they were expected to help society, even while being in prison? You see, making license plates was good for society, and that's how they "paid they're debt to society", by fulfilling services like that. I always thought it a great system.

Giving them gym equipment, cable tv and college education doesn't seem to work, I'll give you that. And, while I don't disagree with allowing inmates to learn and better themselves, I don't think the "time out" is really all that effective for most prisoners. I would actually advocate putting them back to work and keep them busy in order to make imprisonment a more useful consequence (repaying society making it restorative?).

Rachel

quatona · Jul 24, 2006

Robinsegg said:
What you seem to be saying is that "anything I wouldn't enjoy shouldn't be done to a child". Well, if the consequences aren't unpleasant, there's no reason not to display the behavior again.

Well, it may seem like it and maybe the way I worded it caused this impression. But rest assured, it is not what I want to say. What I am saying is: People deserve being treated respectfully, and this is independent of their age.

Theu, there is no enforcement of boundaries.

To me it is more the question whether the way those boundaries are designed is likely to communicate the message I intend.

There are children who grow up not understanding why they get traffic tickets or why they go to jail, because they've never experienced discipline (negative consequences, whatever they are).

Firstly, children experience negative consequences all the time, even if nobody imposes punishment on them. So there is no lack in opportunity to learn about negative consequences.
What you, however, seem to be talking about is preparing children for an authoritative world by making them familiar with sanctions early.
If a child doesn´t understand why it gets a ticket, this can be easily explained.

They're totally flummoxed when it occurs. Kids need negative, unpleasant consequences to learn self-discipline.

I disagree. Kids need to learn that there are negative, unpleasant consequences, if there are such consequences. And they do, all by themselves, because that´s exactly what "consequence" means.
I personally don´t think conditioning kids is a good approach. This may have similar reasons as my notion that punishment in society, as it is used right now, is for most parts counterproductive.

They can be given more freedom with the more responsibility they take for themselves and for keeping themselves in line with the rules of society and your household.

Once you have conditioned them into certain behaviours, I have a hard time speaking of "freedom" as the result.

If my original reading is correct, I don't see how to reconcile the two concepts.

Yours and mine? I agree in that there would be great problems coming our way if trying to reconcile them.
Thank God (oops!) we aren´t married!

quatona · Jul 24, 2006

TheUltimateWarrior said:
Oh no, Punishment is a deterrent for crime. The Death penalty is the reason alot of people are alive and alot more arent on death row.

And you know this exactly how?
Capital crime is significantly lower in countries without the death penalty. Even if we substract the possibility that cultural differences other than the death penalty play a part in that (are Europeans naturally less violent than Americans?), I still don´t see where you pull that statement.

Robinsegg · Jul 24, 2006

Ah, so you don't like the concept of teaching kids how they should behave any certain way. I get it. Does this mean that children should decide for themselves if bullying others is appropriate? Or dealing drugs? Or reaching for electrical outlets?

Interesting.
Rachel

TheUltimateWarrior · Jul 24, 2006

quatona said:
And you know this exactly how?
Capital crime is significantly lower in countries without the death penalty. Even if we substract the possibility that cultural differences other than the death penalty play a part in that (are Europeans naturally less violent than Americans?), I still don´t see where you pull that statement.

Im not on death row am I?

There is your proof its a deterrant.

To spank or not to spank please vote

Senior Contributor

Active Member

Count as lost, every moment not spent loving God

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

"God"? What do you mean??

Count as lost, every moment not spent loving God

Senior Contributor

Active Member

SuperMod L's

SuperMod L's

Active Member

SuperMod L's

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

SuperMod L's

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency