Reasonable.
Unreasonable and uncalled for. AGAIN- Spanking appears to often be a Last Resort.
As Sifreak mentions above.
City Revives Paddling, sees major improvement in Behavior
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Unreasonable and uncalled for. AGAIN- Spanking appears to often be a Last Resort.
As Sifreak mentions above.
ohh noes studies!! that condons spanking!
Explain the spank
Spanking without an explanation contributes little to discipline. In fact, studies have shown that calm spanking preceded by a rational explanation does less harm and more good than spanking without such reasoning. Explaining the punishment can be therapeutic for both the spanker and the spankee. It helps you decide whether or not your action is appropriate. It makes it less likely that the child will repeat the misbehavior, gives your child a chance to make a judgment about the fairness of the action, and preserves the self-image of the child by treating him as a rational person. The child will feel angry and humiliated about the spanking if he feels that there is no reason for it.
ohh noes more studies
Do not violate your child
Removing underwear in order to spank bare skin is a humiliating invasion of personal and private space and sexually threatening and confusing to the child. So firmly resist the traditional image of the bare- bottomed child stretched across your lap.
Should you use your open hand, paddle, or a switch to spank? Use of any one of the above will not cause permanent physical harm if you avoid too much force. The one tool we definitely advise against is a wooden spoon because we have seen bodily injury result from this club-like instrument. Any spanking that leaves black and blue marks (bruising) is wrong whether you use an object or your hand. Keep your hand open and flat—a fisted hand will be too forceful and damaging. A child old enough to spank (see number 6) will also understand that your loving hand is holding the spanking tool. The hand-versus-object debate is meaningless to him.
Explain the spank
Spanking without an explanation contributes little to discipline. In fact, studies have shown that calm spanking preceded by a rational explanation does less harm and more good than spanking without such reasoning. Explaining the punishment can be therapeutic for both the spanker and the spankee. It helps you decide whether or not your action is appropriate. It makes it less likely that the child will repeat the misbehavior, gives your child a chance to make a judgment about the fairness of the action, and preserves the self-image of the child by treating him as a rational person. The child will feel angry and humiliated about the spanking if he feels that there is no reason for it.
ohh noes more studies
Do not violate your child
Removing underwear in order to spank bare skin is a humiliating invasion of personal and private space and sexually threatening and confusing to the child. So firmly resist the traditional image of the bare- bottomed child stretched across your lap.
Should you use your open hand, paddle, or a switch to spank? Use of any one of the above will not cause permanent physical harm if you avoid too much force. The one tool we definitely advise against is a wooden spoon because we have seen bodily injury result from this club-like instrument. Any spanking that leaves black and blue marks (bruising) is wrong whether you use an object or your hand. Keep your hand open and flat—a fisted hand will be too forceful and damaging. A child old enough to spank (see number 6) will also understand that your loving hand is holding the spanking tool. The hand-versus-object debate is meaningless to him.
what i find most amusing is the premis that someone who uses violence to get there own way DESERVES respect. They dont, they deserve contempt. I made a vow which i kept, that is that as soon as i was old enough if either of my parents laid a hand on me they would get it back twice as hard. They tried open hand they would get closed fist back and this would continue until they stopped. It worked eventually
The premis of all the "violence against women" campains is that women are generally not strong enough to defend themselves from there male partner on equal footing. This may or maynot be true. The second premis is that "real men dont hit people weaker than themselves". It seems that there are very few "real men" in this thread, you are cowards, who have to take your own inadquacies in life out on your children.
Even as the law currently states most of you are child abusers who if you lived here i would happerly report. The current law states, if any object is used or if enough force is aplied that any sort of redning apears you have commited assult. This leaves about the amount of force nessary to bring up a vain while a person has a torque on as the max force which can legally be used against a child (try it on yourself and see how hard you can hit before ANY mark apears)
As for the comment often made by mad that "its better to give them a wack over the hand than to have them burn themselves" what stupidity, if someone has there hand near a flame and you hit the back of that hand it will go TOWARDS the hot thing, what you need to do is grab the hand (or child) and pull them BACKWARDS. The same goes for his "child about to step out in front of a car" senario, you pull them out of harms way, you dont cause MORE harm
The premis of all the "violence against women" campains is that women are generally not strong enough to defend themselves from there male partner on equal footing. This may or maynot be true. The second premis is that "real men dont hit people weaker than themselves". It seems that there are very few "real men" in this thread, you are cowards, who have to take your own inadquacies in life out on your children.
Even as the law currently states most of you are child abusers who if you lived here i would happerly report. The current law states, if any object is used or if enough force is aplied that any sort of redning apears you have commited assult. This leaves about the amount of force nessary to bring up a vain while a person has a torque on as the max force which can legally be used against a child (try it on yourself and see how hard you can hit before ANY mark apears)
As for the comment often made by mad that "its better to give them a wack over the hand than to have them burn themselves" what stupidity, if someone has there hand near a flame and you hit the back of that hand it will go TOWARDS the hot thing, what you need to do is grab the hand (or child) and pull them BACKWARDS. The same goes for his "child about to step out in front of a car" senario, you pull them out of harms way, you dont cause MORE harm
I have noticed a correlation, in my personal and anecdotal experience. The jails, dive hotels, slum housing, and trailer parks of the US are not filled with the unspanked, in my acquaintanceship with them.neverfly said:
But is it statistically or influentially the case?neverfly said:
You need to get out more.neverfly said:
The OP, to pick the obvious, has nothing about "all other methods having failed".
No. They must simply point to the fact that the people claiming improvement are the same people failing to elicit good behavior before, and with a vested interest in being allowed to "paddle" kids now. Both their estimates of what is good behavior and their claims of improvement need support, their prior failure needs evaluation, andneverfly said:
most important
the burden of proof is on the people who advocate hitting schooldhildren with wooden sticks. They have to demonstrate benefit, visible to outside and dispassionate evaluators with more than the hitter's perspective in mind, and clearly balanced against carefully considered costs of all kinds.
The problem with that argument ....
And studies have shown that cigarettes smoked through cotton filters do less harm than without. Studies strongly suggest that smoking marijuana through a water filter does less harm and more good than smoking tobacco, period. Nothing about those studies, though, would suggest that setting something on fire and breathing concentrations of the output is healthy.
That there are less harmful ways to spank does not mean they are a good idea over the long run.
Sifreak21 said:
And studies have shown that cigarettes smoked through cotton filters do less harm than without. Studies strongly suggest that smoking marijuana through a water filter does less harm and more good than smoking tobacco, period. Nothing about those studies, though, would suggest that setting something on fire and breathing concentrations of the output is healthy.
That there are less harmful ways to spank does not mean they are a good idea over the long run.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
By the frigging definition of the frigging word. I gave you one definition from an online dictionary: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.
Or from Collins Concise Dictionary, a respected UK reference: The exercise or instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction etc.
That is not what corporal punishment is about, when correctly and appropriately applied. It is intended to communicate the extent to which the child's behaviour is inappropriate; to underline the patient verbal explanation of the inappropriateness. It is not intended to violate, damage, abuse, injure or destroy, therefore it is not violent.
Your subsequent arguments on mental development appear specious. You are raising the false sense that we should be protecting 'the mentally underdeveloped' and that means protecting them from violence. You fail to understand that application of a physical 'shock' to an immature mind that is not responding to verbal reasoning can, applied in the right way, in the right context, etc, get their attention and help communicate the seriousness with which their behaviour is viewed. We are, through this action, protecting the mentally immature (why can't you just call them children?) from themselves.
Of course it's frigging selective. Where are the citations for the studies that show the damage done by verbal abuse of children, or psychological abuse related to the witholding of parental love and affection, etc? Where are the studies that show where the balance exists between these? Why haven't I cited them? I don't even know if these studies have been done. They don't appear to be, so until they are, or someone points me to the findings I shall stay with my well honed ape instincts that have served us for millions of years and administer when necessary a gentle slap on the wrist - physical or verbal as appropriate.
Neither are the Universities, corporations or anywhere else.
Somehow, the vast majority of people on the planet are not in jail, psych wards, trailer parks...
Nor does it say it is the first, second or third method tried.
A little intellect and common sense gets employed there.
It does, however, state that a paddling occurred ONE time.
Agreed.
BUT-- If you are claiming that the article LIED, then the burden of proof is on YOU to show that they did lie.
Is the intent of the hitter the sole perspective allowed into our evaluations?ophiolite said:
I would normally want to include the perspective of the hit, and the perspective of others involved, and quite possibly the evaluations of others not involved, before determining what an event of corporal punishment was "about", and whether it was "violent".
I think it is because they are not allowed to vote. If children would be able to vote politicians would actually care about them and their rights. Imagine if we take away the right of pensioners to vote. What would be the first thing that happens? All kinds of special laws would pass the vote that would damage the rights and lives of the elderly. Even more so that currently it going on.
After all, you are allowed to let elderly people wet their pants because there isn't enough time to take care of them in elderly homes. Isn't that a form of mental and physical abuse as well? Society sanctioned abuse.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I won't automatically rule out the evaluations of others, but I don't see why you want to include them. The 'hitter' is seeking to guide the child to better behaviour through a blend of approaches, one of which includes hitting them to get their attention, or to underline the seriousness of their actions.
I don't see how the perspective of a bystander has relevance here, except that if they misunderstand th intent they might interfere, to the disdvantage of all.
The perspective of the 'hit' is vitally important, because that is what we are trying to change.
However, the only thing that actually determines whether the event is violent or not is the hitters intent. (I'm excluding such bizarre situations as the hitter thinking they have picked up a light cane, but have actually grasped a sharp meat cleaver. I mean we are trying to be practical here. If they did that, then regardless of their intent the result would properly be classed as violent.)
I don't see how the perspective of a bystander has relevance here, except that if they misunderstand th intent they might interfere, to the disdvantage of all.
The perspective of the 'hit' is vitally important, because that is what we are trying to change.
However, the only thing that actually determines whether the event is violent or not is the hitters intent. (I'm excluding such bizarre situations as the hitter thinking they have picked up a light cane, but have actually grasped a sharp meat cleaver. I mean we are trying to be practical here. If they did that, then regardless of their intent the result would properly be classed as violent.)
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I was occasionally spanked as a child and I have absolutely no idea what long term effect, if any it had on me.
I do know my exemplary conduct in secondary school was almost entirely attributable to the threat of 'the belt', a thick leather strap, applied to the outstretched hands - maximum number of permitted blows: six.
I do know my exemplary conduct in secondary school was almost entirely attributable to the threat of 'the belt', a thick leather strap, applied to the outstretched hands - maximum number of permitted blows: six.
Chances are you would have turned out much worse. This instilled in you the notion of consequence which you would not have experienced first hand until you got older and by then you would have turned to crime or some other bad behavior.
only reason i put it up was because everyis saying studies say its bad bla bla bla tell me what you would do if nothing works keep mind you dont spank professional help didnt help my parents with me either
I think the hitter's intent, especially as described by themselves, is possibly the least relevant or reliable piece of information available.ophiolite said:
To put it into more relevant terms: I don't give a flying fuck what some sadistic little vice principal with a stick has convinced himself he is doing, in his dirty little mind.
If you compare the second sentence with the first, an immediate possibility suggests itself - no?ophiolite said:
My exemplary conduct in secondary school had absolutely nothing to do with threats of punishment. You will find, if you ask around, many other people like me.
Ad Hom. You assume perversion and intent during your denial.
You have no reason, nor evidence, to assume that a VP or Principle is Dirty minded or sadistic.
Anecdotal.
Ask around, you find plenty who are not like you, as well. One of them, sifreak, just posted.
Because their children. People can detain children against their will, they can force them to disrobe, children can be removed off of a public street after 10PM for no other reason than it is after 10pm, they can be barred from entering a theater playing a R rated movie, a casino, a strip club or an establishment that serves alcohol, based solely on age. If you did any of those things to an adult they could either sue you or have you arrested. Why do you think that is? Maybe just maybe there is a reason adults and children are not treated exactly the same under the law.
Bells
Staff member
You are going to debate the use of the word?
Again, provide scientific evidence that "spanking" is beneficial to children in the long term. Studies have been done and they found that it was not beneficial to children in the long term. Surely some studies have been done to show the opposite, since you keep pushing that same argument. Provide some links.
You would "spank" a child for throwing a ball?
You would ground a child for throwing a ball?
How about this alternative. Take all the balls away from little Timmy. You know, remove temptation? Explain to Timmy why you don't want him to throw the ball anymore. You know, take time and actually try to get them to understand why his throwing the ball is bad.
I see that spanking has not helped you much with the use of the english language.
That sentence made absolutely no sense.
Lets taser children!
You are aware that the police are constantly investigated in the use of tasers and for police brutality, right? That the use of tasers is highly regulated. You do know this, right?
Do you have a link for that?
For example, if I post or quote from another site, I have to at the very least provide a link for it. As such:
It's actually not that hard. You should give it a try.
I had a case, several years ago, where a spouse attempted to use that very argument about the "spanking" he gave his wife on a daily basis. In his mind, he was not violating or abusing her, nor was he causing any damage. He was just attempting to educate her about the right way of doing things. It didn't get very far.Ophiolite said:
The very act of hitting someone is a violation against that other person, and yes, children are people too. You can refer to it by any name, be it spanking, smacking, slapping, the act itself is indicative of raising one's hand or object (eg paddle, hair brush, belt) and striking another person. How is that not violent in your eyes?
Referring to it as corporal punishment does not take away the simple fact that you are hitting another individual with force. You can try to pretty it up and say that you are trying to educate or communicate to the child that their behaviour is innappropriate. It still does not detract from the very simple fact that you are striking that child in doing so. Hitting another person is violent. It doesn't make it less so because the individual being spanked/hit/smacked/paddled is a child.
If you spank an adult and whether it leaves a mark or not, it is still assault. If you spank a child and it doesn't leave a mark, it is not deemed as assault, but is viewed as a form of communication. It is only deemed assault if it bruises the child. Those rules only apply to children. Spanking an adult, bruise or no bruise, is deemed violent and abusive. What I want to know is why the same rules do not apply to children? They don't even apply to animals. If you spank a dog to teach it the error of its ways and to train it, you can find yourself arrested and jailed. But if you do the same to a child, it is acceptable. It is astounding to me how this can be so and how and why people attempt to justify it.
Would you advocate the same argument against the mentally disabled?
All the studies I have cited show those as being preferable to spanking. We all know that verbally abusing a child is abuse. I doubt anyone is going to argue that point. The same can be said for witholding parental love and affection.
There is no exact balance, because every child is different. But all the studies I have read over the years all point to the same thing. Hitting a child, call it spanking, smacking, paddling, etc, is still a violent act against a child. It may provide an immediate desired reaction from the child, but there is a risk of long term damage. And with some children, more so.
Would you do the same with your children?
My parents never once threatened me to do well in school. Not once. I was brought up to believe that the only thing they expected from me was for me to try my best and not give up. And I did pretty well. Never got into trouble and never even got detention and I got straight A's. Instead of threats of violence, I was supported by my parents.
And it shows with sifreak, don't you think?Neverfly said:
He's willing to "spank" a child for throwing a ball. Instead of taking all the balls away and explaining why he's doing it, instead of explaining why he doesn't want "Timmy" to not throw the ball, instead of explaining why Timmy is getting the time out's, etc, he rather just "spank" because apparently all the other methods failed. What do you think he could have done differently? I'll giv eyou a hint.. explained to Timmy why he did not want him to throw the ball.. You know, take time and get down to their level and explain things to them.
Why dont you try that some time yourself?
Of course. I was replying to one of them, and that was my point.neverfly said:
The burden of proof is on the people who want to have their school officials hitting schoolchildren with sticks.john said:
Those of us who don't want that allowed don't need evidence, even as much as we have supplied - which is sufficient, btw, for the arguments we are making. We aren't advocating such obviously questionable behavior.
No. I observe the occasional existence of perversion and self-deception in the real world. I observe that self-description of "intent" is not reliable information in this situation.neverfly said:
I have every reason, and evidence from my own experience as well as thousands of accounts over hundreds of years in multiple cultures and far-flung continents, to assume that some percentage of VPs, Principals, and other school officials are occasionally dirty minded, sadistic, mean, unfair, unjust, self-deceptive in their accounts of their intentions, and not to be trusted with permission to hit schoolchildren with sticks.neverfly said:
Are you denying the occasional existence of perversion and self-deception, in the real world?
Besides, that isn't even the worst of the problems with hitting kids. Even with the best of adult intentions, we have considerable evidence of troublesome consequences - such as the posts here, where those routinely spanked, belted, caned, and paddled attribute their good behavior crucially and significantly to fear of that punishment.
Last edited: