To spank or not to spank please vote

[quatona]

Ah, so you don't like the concept of teaching kids how they should behave any certain way. I get it.

No, sorry, you were celebrating too early.
I am all for teaching it to them, I am opposed to conditioning it into them.

Does this mean that children should decide for themselves if bullying others is appropriate?

No, but I don´t see a point in communicating this by bullying them.

Or dealing drugs?

Like it or not: in the end children will decide themselves whether to deal drugs or not. The question, however, is whether conditioning them enables them to make an informed, educated decision, or isn´t likely to be counterproductive. You do know the old commonplace: What´s forbidden becomes attractive. I think there is something about it. Once you have conditioned children into reacting towards sanctions only, they are likely to behave differently in moments when those sanctions aren´t threatening them

Or reaching for electrical outlets?

This is certainly an important point. Those few instances in which children are not aware of a danger. In the particular case of electrical outlets there are protectors available. If, at a later point, you want to introduce your children to the unpleasanty of electrical shocks, you can suggest them to make some experiments with low (and then increasingly higher, to the point where it´s "ouch") voltage. That way they will have fun learning consequences.

Interesting.

Yes, isn´t it?

 

[quatona]

Im not on death row am I?

There is your proof its a deterrant.

 

[Robinsegg]

Okay, is this more accurate?
You don't believe in simply conditioning responses from children. You would prefer they be taught about the issues at hand.

If this is the case, I'm closer to you than you might have thought. You see, while I do believe in conditioning responses, I believe in helping them understand why the response is positive. I condition my children to obey me so I can give them freedom instead of making them constantly stay right at my side. If I can trust them to stop when I tell them to, I don't have to be in arms reach to stop them from something dangerous (like being hit by a rolling trash can when the person pushing it can't see them over it). If I can know they'll come when I call, I can let them temporarily out of my sight (like in a McDonald's playplace).

However, any time I discipline them (in whatever way, it varies per child and offense) I talk to them and help them understand the importance of the rule at hand. Usually, it doesn't take much training for them to simply do what is expected. My children are well behaved and polite when out in public, which will gain them respect and freedom with others (say, in a classroom). Does that make sense?
Rachel

 

[PETE_]

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

But vaccines are not always effective, and I was noy just referring to vaccines. Antibiotics are often given as shots instead of orally because they are more effective in that form. Also there can be side effects that can be harmful or even deadly.

A little pain does not equal harm. When we run or work out our bodies go through some pain. Yet it is good for our body. A proper spanking does not harm a child only gives them a little pain for a short time for their ultimate benefit.

 

[Charlie V]

RSV:
Pro 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. Pro 23:14 If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from Sheol.
Starting with "Sheol," many translations use "death." Hell is a mistranslation.

Secondly, from 23:13, one can only conclude one of the following:
1. This passage is wrong.
2. The "rod" is to be interpretted metaphorically.
3. The words are mistranslated.

This passage, taken literally, is wrong, simply because if you beat someone with a rod, especially a young child, they may, in fact, die. In order for this passage to be correct literally it would have to be physically impossible to beat someone to death with a rod, but people have, in fact, been beaten to death with rods. Children have died in the name of discipline, being beaten to death with rods. To say, if you beat someone with a rod they won't die, is simply incorrect.

I personally think, taken literally, this is an horrific passage which should be ignored, just as we ignore the passages that say eating shellfish is an abomination.

Taken metaphorically -- the "rod" may be non-physical discipline. Any form of discipline which cannot in any way cause death. We all know many forms of non-physical discipline, I need not elaborate.

The only thing left is that the words are mistranslated -- in which case our English version is wrong, referring me back to #1.

But if someone says, "If you beat someone with a rod, they won't die," they are simply mistaken. This year was the 5th anniversary of the 4th of July when a family friend, a police officer in Jersey City, died. He was beaten to death with a rod.

Charlie

 

[Robinsegg]

We all know many forms of non-physical discipline, I need not elaborate.

Actually, this is not necessarily true. My parents were horribly ignorant about discipline, and spanked me for each and every offense. This caused me problems and nearly broke my spirit.

While I don't think that all punishment "of the body" (corporal) is wrong, I do think that training for 1st time parents would be recommended, so parents feel they have options. I'm not talking about saying "all punishment to the body, including spanking and holding a child's hand is abuse", but "here are ways to handle your children when you need them to learn good behavior".

Rachel

 

[Charlie V]

There has to be a logical fallacy in these comparisons.

You can't say, "A hurts and is good for you. B hurts and is good for you. Therefore everything that hurts is good for you."

Working out hurts, and it's good for you!
Vaccines hurt, and they're good for you!

Therefore, bee stings are good for you!

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

We all know many forms of non-physical discipline, I need not elaborate.

Actually, this is not necessarily true. My parents were horribly ignorant about discipline, and spanked me for each and every offense.

What I meant was, we here on the board probably know about some non-physical forms of discipline.

If you (you meaning all readers) have never heard of a non-physical form of discipline, I suggest you do some reading on the subject.

All I meant was, "I don't need to spend an extra few paragraphs explaining what time-outs are, and what taking away toys and TV-time is, and, etc. etc."

Charlie

 

[Robinsegg]

All I meant was, "I don't need to spend an extra few paragraphs explaining what time-outs are, and what taking away toys and TV-time is, and, etc. etc."Charlie

oops! Sorry.
Rachel

 

[PETE_]

There has to be a logical fallacy in these comparisons.

You can't say, "A hurts and is good for you. B hurts and is good for you. Therefore everything that hurts is good for you."

Working out hurts, and it's good for you!
Vaccines hurt, and they're good for you!

Therefore, bee stings are good for you!

Charlie

Obviously some things that are painful are harmful. The statement is that all things that bring pain are not harmful.

 

[Charlie V]

Does this mean that children should decide for themselves if bullying others is appropriate?

No, but I don´t see a point in communicating this by bullying them.

This is actually one of the main problems with physical discipline.

The children do learn a lesson -- but it's not the lesson you wanted them to learn. They learn the lesson that bullying is an appropriate response to actions you don't approve of.

Johnny plays with Daddy's antique lamp.

Daddy spanks (or smacks or hits) Johnny, wanting to teach the lesson, "Don't play with Daddy's antique lamp."

Johnny learns the lesson, "If you don't want someone to play with your things, you should hit them."

So Johnny goes out on the playground, and Sally plays with Johnny's ball. Johnny does what his Daddy taught him to do, and smacks Sally to the ground.

Lesson well learned.

Charlie

PS. I don't go for the "Do as I say, not as I do" argument. And I don't believe the concepts of "right and wrong" apply differently to different people. If it's okay for Daddy to hit Johnny, then it's okay for Johnny to hit Sally. Either both actions are right or both actions are wrong.

 

[Robinsegg]

Johnny learns the lesson, "If you don't want someone to play with your things, you should hit them."

So Johnny goes out on the playground, and Sally plays with Johnny's ball. Johnny does what his Daddy taught him to do, and smacks Sally to the ground.

Lesson well learned.

Charlie

This is never something we hit for. We spank only for direct defiance. When we say "child, do this" and the child (with attitude) says "no", we give them the option of apologizing immediately. IF they continue using attitude and say "no", they will have one smack on the rear (usually the child is still in diapers and it doesn't hurt). The impact makes the child think twice.

We don't spank for hitting, but use the human component and isolate with a requirement of apology to the one hit before play can be resumed.
Rachel

 

[Charlie V]

Obviously some things that are painful are harmful. The statement is that all things that bring pain are not harmful.

I admit, I haven't read all the posts, but I doubt anyone claimed that everything that brings pain is harmful. Childbirth brings pain, and it's wonderful.

There are other things that bring pain that are harmful. Like bee stings.

Okay, now that we've established that, we can forget about it and drop the comparisons because it actually doesn't prove anything in regards to whether physical discipline is harmful or not. We could list fifty million other things that cause pain and are or are not harmful, and it won't mean a thing regarding physical discipline.

Charlie

 

[PETE_]

This is actually one of the main problems with physical discipline.

The children do learn a lesson -- but it's not the lesson you wanted them to learn. They learn the lesson that bullying is an appropriate response to actions you don't approve of.

Johnny plays with Daddy's antique lamp.

Daddy spanks (or smacks or hits) Johnny, wanting to teach the lesson, "Don't play with Daddy's antique lamp."

Johnny learns the lesson, "If you don't want someone to play with your things, you should hit them."

So Johnny goes out on the playground, and Sally plays with Johnny's ball. Johnny does what his Daddy taught him to do, and smacks Sally to the ground.

Lesson well learned.

Charlie

PS. I don't go for the "Do as I say, not as I do" argument. And I don't believe the concepts of "right and wrong" apply differently to different people. If it's okay for Daddy to hit Johnny, then it's okay for Johnny to hit Sally. Either both actions are right or both actions are wrong.

This is just a cop-out. You have different rules for different situations. If you beat up the neighbor for borrowing the lawn mower he gets the wrong idea, but if he knows he disobey his authority(you) and he recieved punishment from you, a child will know the difference just as we do. Our job is to teach them when things are appropriate.

 

[Charlie V]

This is never something we hit for. We spank only for direct defiance. When we say "child, do this" and the child (with attitude) says "no", we give them the option of apologizing immediately. IF they continue using attitude and say "no", they will have one smack on the rear (usually the child is still in diapers and it doesn't hurt). The impact makes the child think twice.

So would it be okay if the child were to hit another child for direct defiance, giving the other child the option of apologizing immediately, if your child told another child to "do this"?

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

This is just a cop-out.

No, it's not. It was my honest and well-thought out viewpoint on the subject, and what I illustrated is an issue which is backed by child psychologists well versed in the subject.

And, from Johnny's viewpoint, he's the authority when it comes to Sally. Sally is younger and smaller than Johnny, which makes Johnny the authority. Sally disobeyed Johnny's authority, so Sally got the punishment.

I do agree we should teach them when things are appropriate. I teach my children, "Hitting is never appropriate." And I believe it.

Charlie

 

[quatona]

Okay, is this more accurate?
You don't believe in simply conditioning responses from children. You would prefer they be taught about the issues at hand.

Yes, the first sentence is quite an accurate paraphrasing, whilst the second, hmm, is at least not the whole story about what I am proposing.

If this is the case, I'm closer to you than you might have thought. You see, while I do believe in conditioning responses, I believe in helping them understand why the response is positive. I condition my children to obey me so I can give them freedom instead of making them constantly stay right at my side.

The freedom of someone to be conditioned to do what I want is not exactly what I mean when saying "giving someonefreedom". But that would just be a semantic question. So let´s say it is counterproductive in regards to what I would like them to base their behaviour on.
If you inflict harm on them, they will learn that this is the punishment.
They won´t learn about the consequences. Conditioning, in fact, means the very opposite: Preventing children from learning about the consequences, because the will never reach the point of facing the consequences.
What they are facing instead is an arbitrarily inflicted punishment. They are taught obedience, that´s what it comes down to.
Now that may be another reason for our disagreements: I don´t believe that obedience is a virtue, and I don´t see how teaching kids obedience enables them to make educated and informed decisions.
If we condition kids into being acting out of fear of punishment instead out of reason, it is no wonder that we later face arguments like: We need the death penalty, because else... We are creating the very problems we want to see disappear (or that I would like to see disappear, to be more precise).

If I can trust them to stop when I tell them to, I don't have to be in arms reach to stop them from something dangerous (like being hit by a rolling trash can when the person pushing it can't see them over it). If I can know they'll come when I call, I can let them temporarily out of my sight (like in a McDonald's playplace).

Sounds like it´s more about you than about them here. Not that there´s necessarily something wrong with that.
As said above, I think children need to have the opportunity to face consequences. If I recommend the kid not to touch this ("it´s hot! You´ll get hurt."), and it will touch it nonetheless, it will learn to things: 1. That touching this thing hurts. 2. That my prediction of the consequences is reliable.
This leads them to focus on the relevant things, imo. Whilst making the question "Will mommy (the government) punish me when I do that" is not the motive I would like societal behaviour be built upon.
(Of course we are not gonna try that with running in front of a truck.)

Now, allow me to ask a question (please don´t take it the wrong way, I merely ask it to discern some things):
What, in your opinion, are the basic differences in education a kid and educating a dog? In terms of purposes, priorities, goals, methods?

However, any time I discipline them (in whatever way, it varies per child and offense) I talk to them and help them understand the importance of the rule at hand.

But for some reason you seem to regard this talking and helping them understand ineffective...

Usually, it doesn't take much training for them to simply do what is expected.

This is what confuses me: That making them do what is expected from them is sort of the highest priority in education.

My children are well behaved and polite when out in public, which will gain them respect and freedom with others (say, in a classroom).

Rachel, let me emphasize (maybe too late) that this is nothing personal. I´m not trying to picture you as a poor mother or something, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a loving person with the best intentions, and I believe you right away that the development of your kids is to your satisfaction.

Does that make sense?

It certainly makes sense within the frame of certain axioms that I don´t share.

 

[Robinsegg]

I once read about a child who was isolated for days on end. I'd say that was abusive.

I read about a child who was sat in a high chair or potty seat for days on end. I'd say that was abusive.

I've read about (and met) people whose parents neglected to teach them behavior values and ended up either totally obnoxious or constantly in legal trouble. I'd call that neglect (at best).

Everything can be taken to extremes, and those extremes are wrong. Condemning an entire practice because some people take it to extremes isn't logical.

Rachel

 

[PETE_]

So would it be okay if the child were to hit another child for direct defiance, giving the other child the option of apologizing immediately, if your child told another child to "do this"?

Charlie

It would not be ok. Children should learn when and by whom discipline should be administered.

 

[quatona]

I once read about a child who was isolated for days on end. I'd say that was abusive.

I read about a child who was sat in a high chair or potty seat for days on end. I'd say that was abusive.

I've read about (and met) people whose parents neglected to teach them behavior values and ended up either totally obnoxious or constantly in legal trouble. I'd call that neglect (at best).

Everything can be taken to extremes, and those extremes are wrong. Condemning an entire practice because some people take it to extremes isn't logical.

I´m not sure I know whom exactly you talk to when paraphrasing his argument to be "I condemn this because people are taking it to the extreme." I haven´t seen this argument here, so far.