|
Post by rational on Oct 10, 2008 7:16:57 GMT -5
learnedaboutgrace, here's what I hear you saying: If my neighbour's dog does his business on my lawn and I tell my neigbour about it 2 times, then on the third time is ok to lay a beating on him as long as I don't do it in anger, and don't leave any bruises. That goes for the dog too of course.....no bruises, no welts. Just keep calm while whaling on them, then they will know just what is acceptable behaviour. The above sounds ridiculous and criminal. Of course it does because it is. I wonder if corporal punishment advocates see the disconnect between what is acceptable for dealing with adult malfeasance and a defenseless child's little mistakes, I doubt it. It is ok to beat a child who is still learning good behaviour, but it is criminal to beat an adult who knows better. My goodness, we can't even legally beat the real criminals who, ostensibly, have done something to deserve it, but for some people it's ok to beat a little child. You are using charged words here. People who advocate spanking do not view it as hitting, striking, impacting, whaling upon, smacking, beating, punching, slapping, bashing, clocking, clouting, knocking, popping, slamming, slugging, smashing, smiting, socking, cuffing, swatting, buffeting, thwacking, whacking, whamming, whopping, biffing, bopping, clipping, walloping, belting, conking, pasting, etc. They spank. And because they call it that, it is OK. Some refuse to even define it or to use the dictionary definition. SPANK To slap on the buttocks with a flat object or with the open hand, as for punishment.No matter how you slice it or spin it, spanking involves moving some object with enough velocity, and in a direction, that results in the object coming into contact with the child with enough force to cause pain in the hope that it will modify the child's behavior. If you did it to an adult you would call it assault and battery. Now, I know what you are thinking. But what goes on between two consenting adults behind (no pun intended) closed doors is not what is being discussed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 8:49:40 GMT -5
Rational, you are right that the word "beating" is emotionally charged but it is what I think of when I think of "moving an object with some velocity" at another person. A spade is a spade no matter what else it could be called.
I admit it, I inflicted pain on my first child, I administered a few beatings. I stopped because I realized just what it really was, and it certainly wasn't behaviour that would be acceptable in any other circumstance, and would be called a beating in other circumstances. No, it wasn't done in anger, nor did it cause bruising but that doesn't change what it was.
Once we realize that we are doing to our children is what we would never do to another person nor accept it to be done to us, then it all comes into perspective. Some Christians are amongst the greatest advocates of this practice, yet fail to test it by the most basic and fundamental all Christian doctrines: "Do unto others........."
|
|
|
Post by Barry G on Oct 10, 2008 9:19:09 GMT -5
Once we realize that we are doing to our children is what we would never do to another person nor accept it to be done to us, then it all comes into perspective. What is being done is "physical punishment," it has been done/is still being done by those in authority (govenements/teachers/parents) since the begining of time. Actually I would accept it being done to me. Why? Because I am a firm believer of 'If you do the crime, you do the time (accept the punishment). No one wants to accept accept responsibility, no one wants to hold anyone accountable for their actions. And when we do "punish them," we lock them up in a place that is safer and has more 'perks' than most of them had when they were on the outside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 9:40:18 GMT -5
Once we realize that we are doing to our children is what we would never do to another person nor accept it to be done to us, then it all comes into perspective. What is being done is "physical punishment," it has been done/is still being done by those in authority (govenements/teachers/parents) since the begining of time. Actually I would accept it being done to me. Why? Because I am a firm believer of 'If you do the crime, you do the time (accept the punishment). No one wants to accept accept responsibility, no one wants to hold anyone accountable for their actions. And when we do "punish them," we lock them up in a place that is safer and has more 'perks' than most of them had when they were on the outside. That physical beatings are a legal form of punishment is news to me, at least in my country and in my lifetime. Saudi Arabia, Iran comes to mind but I'm not so sure that I want my legal system modelled on theirs. Singapore reports good results from caning, but then they have good control of information flow there too. I remember the last I time got a good beating. I was six. Was it a good thing for me? In retrospect, it was counterproductive. It didn't cause me to resolve not to do it again, it made me resolve not to get caught again. That's terrible damage to the development of one's character at such a young age and it takes a long time to regain a full sense of integrity after that.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Oct 10, 2008 10:54:20 GMT -5
I had decided not to respond anymore because people are so polarized but I wanted to point out again This is not done in anger The child knows what behavior is not acceptable The child willfully repeats the behavior 2 times after the first instance(when he may have not known it was not acceptable) so 2 warnings. THE PARENT STAYS CALM AND IN CONTROL. IT is NOT yanking them up and hauling them out of meeting for a butt whipping. There are NO WELTS OR BRUISES. The behavior is one that could lead to serious issues. Not accidentally breaking a glass or something like that. SOmeone asked if I condoned caning like they do in other countries. Does it leave welts and bruises? NO I don't condone it then. Not totally sure where I stand on the whole spanking thing anyway but it seems some of the more anti-spanking people think it is a beating every time a child needs correction or nothing at all, not something to use only in extremly serious cases. I agree, there is a difference between spanking and beating and most kids need a spanking once in awhile. Clearday, if you beat (past tense) your kids, you are right to refrain. But there is nothing wrong with spanking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 11:09:36 GMT -5
The point is eyedee that there is no distinction between beating and spanking, it's all the same. It is all about inflicting pain on a child with a moving object. It's perverse and arcane. It does not reflect one of the fruits of the Spirit nor one teaching of Christ, nor does Christ's actions ever give one hint that this is a Christ-like behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Oct 10, 2008 11:19:11 GMT -5
The point is eyedee that there is no distinction between beating and spanking, it's all the same. There may not be in your mind, but so far (in the US) according to the law there still is a difference. Someday they both may be illegal, but there will still be a difference.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 10, 2008 11:22:03 GMT -5
What is being done is "physical punishment," it has been done/is still being done by those in authority (govenements/teachers/parents) since the begining of time. Yes it has. The bible recommends stoning children until they die if rebel against their parents. That is certainly historical. Should that practice be continued? And as an adult you can reason this all out. But what is crime to a child? People should be accountable for their actions. Generally this means the person knows what is right and wrong. Would you lock up a 2 year old child for life if they killed their sibling while playing with Dad's guns? But there is the idea of responsibility. Does the child know? From what you have said it is not enough that some action be taken to address the infraction but you want the response to be severe. And it also seems like you are leaning towards physical punishment. Study after study have shown that physical punishment only teaches pain avoidance and does not correct the underlying behavior. Given its inability to deliver the desired results and the mounting evidence of its detrimental effect on the lives of children do you have any arguments why its continued use should be allowed?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 10, 2008 11:30:41 GMT -5
The point is eyedee that there is no distinction between beating and spanking, it's all the same. There may not be in your mind, but so far (in the US) according to the law there still is a difference. Someday they both may be illegal, but there will still be a difference. Think about it from the child's view. They are being hit and it hurts. In the retelling it might sound like they were being drawn and quartered. It is the child's perception that matters, not the intention of the parents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 12:45:10 GMT -5
The point is eyedee that there is no distinction between beating and spanking, it's all the same. There may not be in your mind, but so far (in the US) according to the law there still is a difference. Someday they both may be illegal, but there will still be a difference. I think you are right in predicting the likelihood of this being illegal in the future. I think this movement is inevitable. The US will be one of the last holdouts. Laws do not always reflect true right and wrong, but rather reflect what the populace (or its leadership) deem to be right and wrong. The fact that children are now the only legal victims of violence does not make it right.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Oct 10, 2008 13:46:35 GMT -5
When a child sticks his hand into the knife drawer to get his favorite knife and slices his hand wide open on a larger, more menacing knife, he learns to not stick his hand in the knife drawer again but rather ask an adult to do it (personal experience). When a child touches the hot stove, he quickly withdraws, howls in pain, and does not likely do it again. When a child grabs a hot bowl or plate, he learns from the experience and does not do it again. You go to the restaurant and order a dish that is served by a waiter wearing an oven mitt. He says the plate is hot. If you are paying attention, you will not touch the plate, unless you do not believe him in which case you will learn quickly that he knows what he says.
So self-inflicted punishment/correction is okay, I guess. Heaven forbid a parent try to instill correction by applying swats at the appropriate time and location with proper vocabulary either preceding or following. A swat gets attention and does not harm. Sure, the child's esteem may dwindle for a moment, but is it a good idea to let the child think he is king? Like I said, some kids need it and some do not.
I found out while driving a school bus that kids do not respond to a simple plea for silence. But their attention can be had with one curse word. There was a time, years ago, when kids respected their elders regardless of mental capacity and generally obeyed all adults. Sadly, they respond only to cursing now. And since many school districts listen to kids first and adults last, I do not blame bus drivers that wear earplugs while driving. Some even remove the inside mirror. What is the point in watching the rear of the bus if the driver's need for order is ignored by the school district? Unfortunately, the kids find out quickly where the school board stands and take advantage of the situation immediately.
Those children who have parents who do not discipline nor instill respect for adults are getting the short end of the stick. We already have 'new age' kids, those who were not disciplined, graduating high school and proving they have nothing to offer. I would rather get a few swats while growing up than come to the realization that I have nothing to offer because my parents were afraid of me or the system.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Oct 10, 2008 14:36:46 GMT -5
I would rather get a few swats while growing up than come to the realization that I have nothing to offer because my parents were afraid of me or the system. I guess you and I may be sharing a cell at "re-education camp." It's not about if someone learns/knows right from wrong, it's all about how the 'feel' about it.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 10, 2008 14:45:01 GMT -5
Once we realize that we are doing to our children is what we would never do to another person nor accept it to be done to us, then it all comes into perspective. What is being done is "physical punishment," it has been done/is still being done by those in authority (govenements/teachers/parents) since the begining of time. Actually I would accept it being done to me. Why? Because I am a firm believer of 'If you do the crime, you do the time (accept the punishment). No one wants to accept accept responsibility, no one wants to hold anyone accountable for their actions. And when we do "punish them," we lock them up in a place that is safer and has more 'perks' than most of them had when they were on the outside. I assume you're speaking allegorically when you say 'if you do the crime, you do the time (punishment),' and that you would be okay with physical punishment. I mean, we're talking about spanking children as punishment and behavior modification following misbehavior - not crimes - right? So what I hear you saying is that you would accept being spanked when you misbehave or need your behavior modified. Let's think about that. We have a performance measurement and management system at work -- the 'annual review' process. Perhaps instead of those boring numbering systems to indicate poor performance and change behavior, we should administer spankings. In fact, why wait for the annual review? "Gene, I was expecting that report this morning, and it's now 1 pm. Bring that paddle, and come over here..."
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Oct 10, 2008 14:51:20 GMT -5
I think that is a great idea, Gene! But then sex in the office would become a huge problem. I would rather get a few swats while growing up than come to the realization that I have nothing to offer because my parents were afraid of me or the system. I guess you and I may be sharing a cell at "re-education camp." It's not about if someone learns/knows right from wrong, it's all about how the 'feel' about it. Shoot! What was I thinking??? I forgot we are supposed to tread lightly around children because they have feelings. . . . Feelings . . . those are the nerve endings on the skin of the rump, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 15:12:06 GMT -5
I would rather get a few swats while growing up than come to the realization that I have nothing to offer because my parents were afraid of me or the system. I guess you and I may be sharing a cell at "re-education camp." It's not about if someone learns/knows right from wrong, it's all about how the 'feel' about it. I have your cell all picked out for you bandtroll. More seriously, the argument you make that parents who don't spank also don't teach discipline along with right and wrong is 'way out in left field....right field actually. Parents who choose not to spank often put in far more time and effort into teaching right and wrong than those parents who think that they have done their duty with a swat. Choosing not to spank requires a whole lot more from parents, but it's worth it when the results are evident.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 10, 2008 18:39:55 GMT -5
I don't get this thread. Nobody is condoning child abuse in any way. Nobody advocates hitting a 12-year-old. But a rowdy 2-year-old in Walmart? Maybe a slap on the butt is the best way to get his attention...like ID10T says, certain punishments work for certain kids. What else ya gonna do with your 2-year-old while you're trying to shop? Reason with him? "Now Tommy, when daddy gets home from work he'll ground you for a week!"
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on Oct 10, 2008 18:48:06 GMT -5
I don't get this thread. Nobody is condoning child abuse in any way. Nobody advocates hitting a 12-year-old. But a rowdy 2-year-old in Walmart? Maybe a slap on the butt is the best way to get his attention...like ID10T says, certain punishments work for certain kids. What else ya gonna do with your 2-year-old while you're trying to shop? Reason with him? "Now Tommy, when daddy gets home from work he'll ground you for a week!" No No Diet...You got it all wrong it should have read. "Now Tommy, when daddy gets home from work he'll ground you for a week!" If its ok with you cause daddy sure wouldnt want to upset my baby Tommy.
|
|
|
Post by dgaab on Oct 10, 2008 19:25:57 GMT -5
Question: Does the ‘hip’ children correction method of “TIME OUT” really work in today’s families?
Curse words to kids, jeepers, most of the 5-year olds I know know more curse words than I do
CD, a street story: A number of years ago, my apartment manager chased down a 21-year-old who had stolen a 76-year-old lady’s purse in the building's elevator. Catching the kid he punched him five-or-six times. The apartment manager was cuffed and arrested for assault (along with the purse snatcher).
Child torture: My parents use to make us stand, put/keep our noses in a room’s corner and be quiet. Try a fifteen minute stint, without sliding to the floor, as a toddler, and being ordered to get back up. You talk about Alcatraz!
|
|
sarahjane
Junior Member
"Think it'll work? It'd take a miracle. Bye-bye!"
Posts: 117
|
Post by sarahjane on Oct 10, 2008 22:28:08 GMT -5
I don't think a 2 yr old should be "swatted" on the butt, nor do I think any kid should be hit at any age. A toddler acting up in Walmart should just be taken out of Walmart. Get your things and get out, no talking, yelling OR reasoning necessary. He doesn't understand why it's wrong to act out his frustration, he just knows he's frustrated. And he won't understand that for a while yet. A toddler doesn't understand why he's being hit, either. He also doesn't understand the concept that it's ok for mom and dad to hit, but not ok for Tommy to hit. So then Tommy will go up to Hannah the next day and hit her, too. Then he will be hit again by his mom who is saying, "Tommy! We don't hit!" as she hits him. And like Rational said, it just teaches pain avoidance. Eyedee, all those painful things you talked about will teach you not to do them again, but only because it hurt. When a child does something that is not acceptable, we want to teach them what is acceptable, and help their little developing brains. You know our brains don't develop until we're around 21?! It's the part that controls impulse that develops last. And, even though i'm not spanking, I will still discipline my boy. There are just other, better ways to do it. (For anyone who's interested, I'm reading a book called "Positive Discipline for Toddlers" by Jane Nelsen.) ok, so I am a new parent, but by golly, i've got some opinions!
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Oct 10, 2008 22:37:05 GMT -5
Question: Does the ‘hip’ children correction method of “TIME OUT” really work in today’s families? Curse words to kids, jeepers, most of the 5-year olds I know know more curse words than I do CD, a street story: A number of years ago, my apartment manager chased down a 21-year-old who had stolen a 76-year-old lady’s purse in the building's elevator. Catching the kid he punched him five-or-six times. The apartment manager was cuffed and arrested for assault (along with the purse snatcher). Child torture: My parents use to make us stand, put/keep our noses in a room’s corner and be quiet. Try a fifteen minute stint, without sliding to the floor, as a toddler, and being ordered to get back up. You talk about Alcatraz! Is your point that it was okay for the apartment manager to punch the thief? If so, where should he stop? Could he knock some teeth out? Give him a concussion? Chasing him and catching him is great... punching him.... not so smart. Regarding time outs. In our family, they are used to get yourself together. If you can't control yourself, you need to take a break until you can. I think this would be a great thing for everyone to practice. So time outs are not really a punishment in our family. I try to make the consequences fit the "crime" in some way. Don't clean your room... you can't have friends over. Don't do your homework, can't participate in extracurricular activities. I guess we don't have any terrible behavior to deal with right now. When my son was young, he would act out physically when he was upset, and our job was to physically control him until he calmed down and teach him ways to control himself next time. He's 6 now, and that's in the past. Our oldest hasn't reached the teenage years yet, so we haven't had to deal with any of those issues yet.
|
|
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 334
|
Post by aurora on Oct 10, 2008 23:09:57 GMT -5
The point is eyedee that there is no distinction between beating and spanking, it's all the same. It is all about inflicting pain on a child with a moving object. It's perverse and arcane. It does not reflect one of the fruits of the Spirit nor one teaching of Christ, nor does Christ's actions ever give one hint that this is a Christ-like behaviour. Then why does the Bible advocate it?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 10, 2008 23:24:18 GMT -5
So self-inflicted punishment/correction is okay, I guess. This is a really poor analogy. None of the examples you provided were deliberately done to inflict pain as a means of teaching. The analogy would work if when you had reached for the knife your parents had taken the other knife and cut you to modify the behavior. Or taken your hand are pressed it to the stove to teach you not to touch hot stoves. You are advocating teaching through the application of physical punishment to the student by the teacher. Your anologies did not support this method. There is no doubt that swatting will get someones attention. Do you use that technique when dealing with adults? No one said the child was to not be disciplined or to be allowed to think they are king. Discipline does not equal physical punishment. Do you really think it is OK for an adult to deliberately cause a child to lose self-esteem? Do you think humiliation is also OK? I do not believe any child needs to be humiliated or physically hurt. The only needs being satisfied are the needs of the adult. You could also use a pellet gun. I am surprised you are allowed to drive children. When was this? Problems with juveniles was mentioned in ancient Sumeria. The Code of Hammurabi (1760 BCE) contained written laws concerning juvenile offenders. Aristophanes (425 BCE) deplored the degeneracy of his times. Social commentaries in the US spoke out against the youth in the 1920's. Even the bible relates stories of kids making fun of their elders. All adults think the youth that are following them are worse behaved do not respect them. It really depends on the approach taken by the adult. Of course it is the school board's fault. Or the children. Or the parents. Never the adult who is charged with their care. Respect is not instilled. It is earned. Not being physically disciplined does not equal not being disciplined.
|
|
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 334
|
Post by aurora on Oct 10, 2008 23:26:01 GMT -5
1Pet.2:20 For what glory is it if, when you are buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? But if, when you do well, and suffer for it, you take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
And from the wisest man to ever live:
...A rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. Prov.10:13
He that spares his rod hates his son: Prov.13:24
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. Prov.22:15
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the fool's back. Prov.26:3
The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself brings his mother to shame. Prov.29:15
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 10, 2008 23:30:56 GMT -5
What else ya gonna do with your 2-year-old while you're trying to shop? Reason with him? "Now Tommy, when daddy gets home from work he'll ground you for a week!" That is not reasoning. It is a threat and passing the responsibility to the other parent.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 10, 2008 23:37:58 GMT -5
rational, you are usually so...rational...but on this thread, you are losing it. This quote is a good example: There is no doubt that swatting will get someones attention. Do you use that technique when dealing with adults? I mean, the whole point is that we are not correcting adults; we are working with small children who need a means of correction that doesn't require the young child to be able to reason as an adult. A two-second swat is quickly over and the startling point is made while the offense is still fresh; a time-out to stand with his nose in the corner after you get home from walmart (or whatever you are advocating as a means of reasoning with your two-year-old) makes far less sense to him. And whoever it was that recommended you stop your shopping to take the kids outside whenever they act up has apparently never been shopping with toddlers. How long do you stand out there before you go back in? What do you do out there? Unless you've got a little darling, you may never get any shopping done.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 11, 2008 0:23:23 GMT -5
Then why does the Bible advocate it? An excellent question. Why does the bible advocate cutting off the foreskin? Or explain the procedure for selling your daughter? Why does the bible advocate killing disobedient children by stoning them? Maybe because the bible was written by people who lived in a demon haunted world.
|
|
|
Post by learnedaboutgrace on Oct 11, 2008 0:23:30 GMT -5
I guess you and I may be sharing a cell at "re-education camp." It's not about if someone learns/knows right from wrong, it's all about how the 'feel' about it. I have your cell all picked out for you bandtroll. More seriously, the argument you make that parents who don't spank also don't teach discipline along with right and wrong is 'way out in left field....right field actually. Parents who choose not to spank often put in far more time and effort into teaching right and wrong than those parents who think that they have done their duty with a swat. Choosing not to spank requires a whole lot more from parents, but it's worth it when the results are evident. I really take offense to this. Some have mentioned that those who spank are taking the "easy way out" while others say that those who choose not to spank are taking the "easy way out". I think there could be similar people on either end. You know the parent that gets off the couch, tearing themselves away from the tv just long enough to whup jr upside the head. Then there is little miss bon bob, watching tv all day, "sweetie, if you don't stop jumping off the table mommy will have to give you a time our or send you to your room and I won't give you any candy." In reality, I doubt this is the true picture for either side. The way I see spanking being used is after we have done the timeouts, the loss of privleges, etc and it is something that if not STOPPED could lead to serious consequences. Not just stuff like Jr didn't take out the trash again. Jr pitched a fit at Wal-Mart.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 11, 2008 0:40:00 GMT -5
rational, you are usually so...rational...but on this thread, you are losing it. This quote is a good example: There is no doubt that swatting will get someones attention. Do you use that technique when dealing with adults? I mean, the whole point is that we are not correcting adults; we are working with small children who need a means of correction that doesn't require the young child to be able to reason as an adult. A two-second swat is quickly over and the startling point is made while the offense is still fresh; a time-out to stand with his nose in the corner after you get home from walmart (or whatever you are advocating as a means of reasoning with your two-year-old) makes far less sense to him. And you think that doing something and being hit makes any sense? What you are saying is exactly the point. You are dealing with children. What do you think, in their eyes, your hitting them means? Or making them stand in the corner. Or any of the other physical punishments that you might think of.
|
|