Anti-Flag:
I don't know. Who are these people that believe kids should be allowed to break laws? Not good parents, I'd say. Certainly doesn't apply to me.
Of course, everyone would agree they shouldn't do bad things. But they do, and few consider what to do if they don't listen to your talking.
So just a "light" beating, then? Can't you think of anything "lighter" than that?
I never said beating, I said punishment.
Not at all, you suggest talking works, and I'm sure there are cases it does, I'm informing you there are ones when it doesn't.
It sounds to me like you don't have children yourself. It's all rather theoretical to you, by the sounds of it. I'm talking about the real world, but you seem to want to imagine a hypothetical one in which you imagine that all kids are uncontrollable except by physical violence. Or do you actually have kids like that? I get the distinct impression that this isn't a real discussion for you, but one based on your imaginings of what it might be like to have children.
Straw man.
You live in an idealistic world of believing talking always works and no punishment is ever necessary and I suggest the real world contains those the method doesn't work on - but you try to turn the tables. Poor form.
Some kids are terrible at listening etc. Not all. But essentially I have no argument with any of this.
I'd say a large % at a young age but gradually improving with knowledge and experience. Perhaps a more accurate and fair statement would be that they all have their moments where talking doesn't work, but some far rarer than others.
Do you condemn parents whose first option when misbehaviour occurs is to smack their child? Because I've seen parents do that on many occasions.
As a first option or a regular option then of course it isn't right, but when you say you've seen it, how do you know it isn't a pre-existing problem where the child has already been spoken to and refused to listen? How often do parents utter the words "I've told you before"? It's a bit much to judge people on a small snippet of their lives.
You're not getting it. Removal of toys, etc., is punishment. It's not a case of "it's not real punishment until you hit them".
Perhaps I should have said "further punishment", but again you're presuming that makes a difference, and whilst in some cases it might, in some it doesn't.
By the way, punishing children by denying them food is also cruel punishment. But perhaps when you speak of "special foods" you mean junk foods, in which case allowing too many of those is similarly detrimental. "Behave or you won't get any dinner" is child abuse just as surely as hitting the child is abuse. Children need food to grow and thrive. Food should never be used as punishment, and it's often a bad idea to use it as a reward too. Both can lead to eating disorders, and don't help the obesity epidemic.
I think it's quite clear with the word "special" and the context of removing priviledges that I was only considering non-essentials commonly removed from children such as sweets and cakes. Luxuries much like the toys. Again, this does not always work.
You're right. It's not so black and white. Will you agree, then, that being regularly beaten as a child means you are more likely to go on to become a criminal of one sort or another later in life, all other things being equal?
Of course, I've never suggested otherwise. I merely object to the idealistic idea that every child can be raised without occassional resorting to a stronger punishment; and the notion that the occassional physical or emotional punishment has any long term detrimental effects to a person.
I disagree that grounding is abusive for children, unless it is regular and arbitrary. Similarly, imprisonment is not abusive for criminals, unless it is arbitrary and/or combined with other forms of abuse.
I think the probable psychological effects could be argued as abusive and damaging, but this point was really just to tie in with the argument that something happening against a persons will makes it abusive, when that is not necessarily so, but that it very obviously can be in many situations.
I may endulge you later, but having never raised a hand to another human being, much less a child, I don't think my answers will be of much use to you.
