|
Post by I see now on May 19, 2006 7:55:48 GMT -5
(Sorry for the formatting problem in my last post... trying again.) LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... My son does something wrong. I've told him not to do it twice. This is his third time doing it and he is getting more blatant in his behavior. Now so many of you say that spanking is wrong, that when I spank my son, I'm teaching him that violence (hitting) is acceptable. Let's look at some of the alternatives... Children learn most of the basics by observation. When they see their parents spank a child they are just seeing the person who sets the example of useing force/pain/hitting/spanking/violence to solve a problem. You cannot force an apology. If you are at this point you have already lost the respect of your child. Well, at least you got this part. You see the problem that arises when you spank a child for hitting their sibling. Of course this is not a good plan. This is a stretch. You need to look at the definition of steal. I see the problem. Look at the alternatives you present. They are all negative. Forcing the child to do things they do not want to do. The goal is to encourage the correct behavior not restrict the bad behavior. Restricting the bad behavior only means that it will be restricted as long as there is a chance of being caught and getting punished. You can prevent theft by watching someone 24 hours a day and punishing them if they steal. As long as you can watch them all the time they will not steal. But you can approach this from another direction. Teach them not to steal because it is wrong, not because they might get caught and be punished. All of your methods listed are negative. All forms of punishment. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. You deny that young children learn mostly by observation? Watching people around them and how they interact? You think they just see/experience you hitting as a punishment and forget it? Spanking is a form of punishment that inflicts pain and tends to modify behavior by teaching pain avoidance rather than what is right or wrong. It does prepare them for life if you want them to solve problems by bullying or being able to inflict more pain than their opponent. No one said just talk about it. It is teaching. The murderers, rapists, and child-molesters have already been taught how to solve their problems - use force and violence. That is not working well at all. You an deny the studies that show the downside of correcting children using physical punishment. Smokers denied the studies that show smoking killed for decades. There was no "clear link" between smoking and cancer. If capital punishment does not deter crime what makes you think that spanking a child will? Let's see. Narrow minded. Looking for any number of alternatives than the one solution of hitting a child to correct their behavior. You have a single solution, punishment, and you call people who are looking for any solution except the single one you support, negative enforcement of behavior, as narrow minded. You -single solution - open minded Me - any solution except punishment - narrow minded. I guess I had a different idea of what anrrow minded means. Right. Physical pain. Builds character. Does a harder spanking show more love? Spanking is not the only way to inflict pain. You can pinch. Squeeze. Shake. Slap. Facial slaps are especially good because they hurt, humiliate, and it usually leaves a mark to remind the person of the punishment. Teaching the right behavior by setting the example that it is OK to hit someone who is doing something that you disapprove. Is that what you really want to teach your child? Physical pain may work well as long as you are stronger and bigger. But how will it work when the child is 18? It won't. Sadly you are not done. You have taught another generation that violence is an acceptable solution to problems. Sure. Not every 18 year old will resort to violence as the first solution to their problems. They hopefully will have observed that there are other ways to solve problems. Someone in their lif might have shown them that just because they are frustrated with another's behavior and are bigger and stronger that the solution is not to inflict punishment.
|
|
|
Post by More love on May 19, 2006 7:57:23 GMT -5
"OUCH" Bowhunter..I didnt get it with anything but a hand on my backside from my parents. I guess his parents loved him more!
|
|
|
Post by Brick on May 19, 2006 8:05:31 GMT -5
How does one justify inflicting pain on their children? I don't know, but God does. Why did he chasten the Children of Israel repeatedly for their excesses? Can you rationalize that?
|
|
|
Post by Nope on May 19, 2006 8:16:04 GMT -5
How does one justify inflicting pain on their children? I don't know, but God does. Why did he chasten the Children of Israel repeatedly for their excesses? Can you rationalize that? In the OT God had people boiling and eating their children. Fathers sold their daughters. I think the idea is to move forward from the violence and killing in the OT. We no longer stone people for their transgressions.
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 19, 2006 10:24:17 GMT -5
"I see now":
You Sir, are truly clueless.
A LOVING parent will encourage correct behavior FIRST, but since children are human, at some point a LOVING parent will occasionally find it necessary to restrict the bad behavior.
I never suggested that encouraging correct behavior isn't necessary. Your implication that I think otherwise is blatantly dishonest.
You say yourself that you support any solution other than punishment. This speaks volumes. Your idealism denies the realities of human nature. Teaching a child what is right does not ensure that he will always avoid that which is wrong.
Now about being narrow minded... I advocate teaching good behavior and when human nature asserts itself, punish bad behavior. You advocate teaching good behavior and ignoring human nature, never expecting bad behavior. Call me narrow minded if you want, perhaps the real issue is this: You need to get realistic!
As for these studies that you are so fond of... This issue is dynamic subjective, and complex. I have yet to see an unambiguous study on the matter. Furthermore, I have spent decades in the scientific community and I can tell you without equivocation that on highly charged political issues such as this, ALL studies are suspect. Put your faith in these unobjective agenda-driven culturally-dependent studies all you want; I will consider the balance of evidence to draw my conclusions.
You mentioned capital punishment. This topic will have to wait, it is much too complex to address here and, due to the way it is often implemented, it has little to do with spanking.
That you oppose punishment really says it all. You may well fall into the category of... "Pointy-headed intellectual with no real-world experience".
|
|
|
Post by Clueless on May 19, 2006 11:44:36 GMT -5
"I see now": A LOVING parent will encourage correct behavior FIRST, but since children are human, at some point a LOVING parent will occasionally find it necessary to restrict the bad behavior. No one has ever suggested that bad behavior should not be restricted. IIt just should not be accomplished by inflicting pain, physical or emotional, on our children. I only went by the words you wrote. It would be an inference not an implication. You are correct. THis was an error on my part. I should have said physical punishment. That is what parents are for. To tell the child when they have gone wrong and suggest an appripriate path. That can always be done without resorting to hurting the child. As do I. Without the need to physically or emotionally hurt the child. Of course I do not expect bad behavior. Nine times out of en you will get what you expect. When there is bad behavior it can be handled in a humane way. Actually, you called me narrow minded. I was just putting out some thoughts we both had expressed for comparison. Looks like you could see the comparison clearly. But then you know yourself better than I. Of course the studies are flawed. But do you see any that indicale that spanking is a marker for good? I agree. That is why I mentioned the smoing issue. Everyone said the studies were flawed. What evidence? I would love to see a study telling of the benefits of using pain to bodify behavior. I mentioned it because the threat of pain only works when there is a chance of getting caught. Spanking is behavior modification using pain. Capital is the extreme. It doesn't deter crime either. Are you suggesting, like homeopathic medicine, that less is better? Well, as a parent, grandparent, and teacher I have had some limited experience. I have worked in the inner city where the children had been spanked and in the affluent communities where they had been neglected. I also have seen what a single person can do with positive guidance with all types of children. And without having to hurt them at all. I do not oppose punishment. I oppose inflecting physical and emotional pain on children. I do not believe an adult should it anyone, much less a child. that also includes pinching, grabbing, squeezing, shaking, and any activity that is meted out to cause pain in another individual. And please - if the research on spanking is not unambiguous, as you stated, I assume there are many articles out there that are in support of spanking. Please post some so there is a balanced view. For some opposing views: www.nospank.net/n-j15.htmAnd one solution to spanking: www.better-behavior.com/benefits.html
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 19, 2006 16:06:25 GMT -5
"Clueless":
You said "[Parents] tell the child when they have gone wrong and suggest an appripriate path. That can always be done without resorting to hurting the child." You also said with regard to punishment that you feel it should be done in a "humane" way that doesn't "physically or emotionally hurt the child." My response is this: How do you humanely punish a child without inflicting physical or emotional pain? Drop the theory; give some real examples.
You said "Of course the studies are flawed" and then continued to base your argument on those same flawed studies. My response is this: Why go further? If the studies are flawed, why are you so insistent that their conclusions are beyond reproach?
You said "Of course the studies are flawed. But do you see any that indicale that spanking is a marker for good?" My response is this: I have yet to see a study that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that spanking is healthy AND I have yet to see a study that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that spanking is unhealthy. Remember that you're the hardliner here; I don't tell people that they MUST spank, but YOU DO tell people that they MUST NOT spank.
I must clarify here that when I spoke of drawing my conclusions from evidence, I was speaking of the the families that I have known over the years that allowed themselves spanking as an option compared to those that refused to consider it, and the contrast in results between the two groups. Perhaps "evidence" was the wrong word; "experience" or "observations" would have been better.
Again, the topic of capital punishment will have to wait, it is much too complex to address here and, due to the way it is often implemented, it has little to do with spanking. If you insist on hammering this issue, start a new thread.
As I re-re-read what you've posted, I get a strong impression that you've never been responsible for a REAL stubborn child... even if you are convinced that you've seen the worst.
|
|
|
Post by bullwhip on May 19, 2006 17:22:31 GMT -5
I wonder how many of these anti-spanking adults were spoiled children,themselves?They are showing their disregard for others and in some cases their own parents by claiming spanking goes too far. I haven't seen any of them mention that they them selves were abused as children, so their credibility is in question. How many of these elitists have children of their own? If they don't they have no credibility,either. So far,it appears to me that those who oppose are expressing their own disrespect for others rights and opinions-supposedly bad manners and disrespect for adults are easily corrected by speaking softly and allowing children to express themselves and somehow they will turn out just fine,maybe better than those who were so horribly tortured by vicius unloving parents who had the brains and love to make them see the right way to behave. If these hands off,touchy feely phscyco babble methods work so well, why are you people so rude and disrespectful of others who happen to disagree with you? Where's all the love and tolerance you preach and impose? Some folks are simply educated beyond their intelligence level.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on May 19, 2006 17:58:45 GMT -5
By your own children and God. Your what we call hit and run poster. Sign up and be accountable for your big talk. Any child that was raised in the "TRUTH" in the 60'sand 70's knows good and well you we're spanked .In our family it was the belt and if you blocked it you received another. Not fun and alot of fear not respect. As we all got older we have forgiven.I'm speaking for my brother because we have had this conversation. We knew that was not the way we would raise our children. Now Bullwhip if you want to do this than fine be very careful. You may instill a seed thats bitter and not sweet as time passes.
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 19, 2006 18:27:46 GMT -5
Nitro, I have many relatives and friends in the 2x2 system, many of them were not spanked as children, and many of them are not now spanked as children.
I'm guessing that about 10% of my 2x2 relatives and friends fall into this "not-spanked" category.
I do think though that the percentage of spanking families in the 2x2 system is much higher than the general population.
|
|
|
Post by Without a Clue on May 19, 2006 19:18:09 GMT -5
"Clueless": You said "[Parents] tell the child when they have gone wrong and suggest an appripriate path. That can always be done without resorting to hurting the child." You also said with regard to punishment that you feel it should be done in a "humane" way that doesn't "physically or emotionally hurt the child." My response is this: How do you humanely punish a child without inflicting physical or emotional pain? Drop the theory; give some real examples. First, an unfortunate misuse of words. What I meant to type was that discipline should be done in a humane way without hurting the child physicaly or emotionally. As far as an example - your child swears. You could slap the child, wash out their mouth with soap, spank them, etc. and no doubt you will not hear the child say that word again. Children want to avoid pain or unpleasent situations. On the other hand you could ask the child what they meant, where they heard the word, and why they said it. It is very probable they are just repeating a word that they do not understand. Our solution was to tell them what the word meant and that was a word that should be used in public. If the child continued to use the word it would have to be in private, most likely in their room. The vast majority of studies are flawed in one way or another. Flawed does not mean wrong. It usually means that after peer review a problem with methodology or analysis has been discovered. There are very few things in life that are 100% perfect. That is like rejecting a diamind bcause it has a flaw. There is still value. By looking at a number of studies, one can evaluate the data and come to some conclusion. Even the flawed studies show that physical punishment is a marker for some problems that arise in later life. As with many studies of this type there is no conclusive proof. That would be true of the smoking-lung cancer link as well. With time and additional studies the links become clearer. My point was that the work that has been done to date tends to show that physical punishment does have a negative effect on developing children. Not a conclusive proof but what is the downside of teaching appropriate behavior with positive rather than negative methods? I understand. I am not hammering this issue. You are supporting the idea of modifying behavior through the use of negative reinforcement. I brought up capital punishment as the ultimate threat of negative reinforcement. If the ultimate use of the method doesn't produce the desired results how can something less be expected to work? Stubborn children are often the easiest to deal with. They just have minds and ideas of their own. Giving them a limited number of choices usually helps. Firm consistant limits are essential. As far as the worst - that is just about what I had. At times they were escorted to me by three attendants. Working with non-institutionalized people are a piece of cake.
|
|
Do you really wonder
Guest
|
Post by Do you really wonder on May 19, 2006 19:27:33 GMT -5
I wonder how many of these anti-spanking adults were spoiled children,themselves?They are showing their disregard for others and in some cases their own parents by claiming spanking goes too far. My parents did not believe in inflicting pain. In order to be credible one must be abused? To recognize that pain is not an effective way to teach or gain respect? I do. And they do not spank their children either. Make them see? Maybe you would be happier with implanted electrodes. You would control behavior without having to get up. Are you seriously suggestiong that parents should prevent children from expressing themselves? I did not read one poster who opposed spanking call anyone a name or disparage them on a personal level. Well, I am not lashing out at you. I wish I could say the same about you and your regard for others. Some folks are simply educated.
|
|
|
Post by words of paul on May 19, 2006 21:02:39 GMT -5
Listen unto the words of Paul: "Spare the rod and spoil the child".
|
|
|
Post by barely spanked on May 19, 2006 21:09:31 GMT -5
During my early childhood years, in a professing home, I was spanked perhaps a total of four times (never to the point of being beaten)...and not at all after the age of ten.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on May 19, 2006 21:30:01 GMT -5
Listen unto the words of Paul: "Spare the rod and spoil the child". What verse are you talking about paul wrote this Maybe a poet.The phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child" is often incorrectly attributed to the Christian Bible. It does not appear there. It was first written in a poem by Samuel Butler in 1664. Proverbs 30: 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar
|
|
|
Post by bullwhip on May 19, 2006 22:15:45 GMT -5
By your own children and God. Your what we call hit and run poster. Sign up and be accountable for your big talk. Any child that was raised in the "TRUTH" in the 60'sand 70's knows good and well you we're spanked .In our family it was the belt and if you blocked it you received another. Not fun and alot of fear not respect. As we all got older we have forgiven.I'm speaking for my brother because we have had this conversation. We knew that was not the way we would raise our children. Now Bullwhip if you want to do this than fine be very careful. You may instill a seed thats bitter and not sweet as time passes. What exactly is it you think I'll be held accountable for,nitro? I don't treat my children the way you were treated-haven't ever used more than a flyswatter and that was a long time back. Perhaps for pointing out ridiculous behavior? As for hit and run posting,hopefully you noticed that quite a few of the opposing spanking posts aren't by registered posters I noticed and pointed out that others who don't believe in spanking are acting holier than they have a right to be and are quick to accuse those who spank of abusing children. Apparently some of you educated folks think you know more than others and somehow have authority to tell others how to be parents-thats why I refered to you as elites. There is a noticable absence of formerly abused children posting here-those folks would have credible opposition to spanking if there was actual legaly defined abuse in there past. Y'all need to get off yer high horses!
|
|
|
Post by whipper on May 19, 2006 22:27:00 GMT -5
coffee cords
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 19, 2006 22:31:50 GMT -5
Without in any way joining the overall debate, with respect to the above, you're both partly right and partly wrong. Paul doesn't say it and yes, the exact phrase doesn't appear as stated, but the same meaning is apparent in the following verses:
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15, ESV)
"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol." (Proverbs 23:13-14, ESV)
"The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother." (Proverbs 29:15, ESV)
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 19, 2006 22:39:26 GMT -5
Listen unto the words of Paul: "Spare the rod and spoil the child". What verse are you talking about paul wrote this Maybe a poet.The phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child" is often incorrectly attributed to the Christian Bible. It does not appear there. It was first written in a poem by Samuel Butler in 1664. Proverbs 30: 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar We've covered this ground already on this thread, but as it seems there are some newcomers, here it is again.... "Love is a boy by poets styled; Then spare the rod, and spoil the child." Written by Samuel Butler, 1612-1680 From Hudibras, pt II, canto I, l 843 Now for the fascinating context of those lines: It appears that Hudibras, the Knight Errant, has been imprisoned by a magician's spell. The Lady comes along, they have a lengthy conversation about love and freedom, and Lady agrees to release the Knight and marry him upon the condition that he submit himself to a whipping. Then it gets kinky. Turns out that the whipping scene has nothing to do with rasing children, but rather about raising "passion in a Lady's heart"! Prepare to be entertained, and read on..... "Whipping, that's Virtue's governess, Tutress of arts and sciences; That mends the gross mistakes of Nature, And puts new life into dull matter; That lays foundation for renown, 815 And all the honours of the gown. This suffer'd, they (knights imprisoned ) are set at large, And freed with hon'rable discharge. ... Now if you'll venture, for my sake, 825 To try the toughness of your back, And suffer (as the rest have done) The laying of a whipping on, (And may you prosper in your suit, As you with equal vigour do't,) 830 I here engage myself to loose ye, And free your heels from Caperdewsie. ... If matrimony and hanging go By dest'ny, why not whipping too? 840 What med'cine else can cure the fits Of lovers when they lose their wits? Love is a boy by poets stil'd; Then spare the rod and spoil the child. ... 850 Why may not whipping have as good A grace, perform'd in time and mood, With comely movement, and by art, Raise passion in a lady's heart? It is an easier way to make 855 Love by, than that which many take. www.exclassics.com/hudibras/hbii1.htm
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 19, 2006 22:40:09 GMT -5
"Without a Clue":
Your example is a good start, but you didn't finish, and if you think you did finish, then your example, and your understanding of some children, is to idealistic. What if the child repeats the offence? Do you talk to him some more? What if the child repeats the offence a third time? A fourth? A fifth? A sixth? A seventh? Get the drift?
You said "The vast majority of studies are flawed in one way or another. Flawed does not mean wrong. It usually means that after peer review a problem with methodology or analysis has been discovered." My response is this: A study with problematic methodology or analysis means that the conclusion of the study is suspect at best. Why would you subject your own child to an experimental notion with roots in flawed studies that is contrary to the lessons of history? And again: Why go further? If the studies are flawed, why are you so insistent that their conclusions are beyond reproach?
You said "Even the flawed studies show that..." My response is this: STOP! What is wrong with you. I mean no disrespect here but can you read what you are typing? The studies are FLAWED! Their conclusions are SUSPECT at best! Why do you continue to put the future of a child in the hands of unverifiable and potentially DEFECTIVE data? And again: Remember that you're the hardliner here; I don't tell people that they MUST spank, but YOU DO tell people that they MUST NOT spank.
You said "what is the downside of teaching appropriate behavior with positive rather than negative methods?" My response is this: Absolutely nothing, so long as it works. Remember, I am saying that at times, positive methods fail to overcome the stubborn will of human nature and when that happens, negative methods may become necessary.
Because you persist: Capital punishment has little to do with spanking. Capital punishment is intended for hardened criminals, not impressionable minds. Capital punishment is often carried out a decade or more after the crime is committed, not within seconds or minutes. You said: "If the ultimate use of the method doesn't produce the desired results how can something less be expected to work?" My response is this: You've got your wires crossed here, akin to saying "I can't get there in time with a jet, so I'll try walking."
This entire matter seems to boil down to this: Your experience has taught you that spanking is wrong. My experience has taught me that spanking is not wrong. You don't spank. I do spank, when required. You don't want others to spank. I don't care if others don't spank, I simply don't want them foisting their personal convictions on me. You are comfortable living by your convictions and foisting them upon others. I am comfortable living by my convictions and defending myself when others attempt to foist their personal convictions on me.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on May 19, 2006 23:16:09 GMT -5
I'm in your corner,Howard-hang tuff!
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin Franklin on May 20, 2006 1:44:17 GMT -5
I believe that it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "spare the rod & spoil the child".
|
|
I think I do Understand
Guest
|
Post by I think I do Understand on May 20, 2006 2:13:45 GMT -5
"Without a Clue": Your example is a good start, but you didn't finish, and if you think you did finish, then your example, and your understanding of some children, is to idealistic. What if the child repeats the offence? Do you talk to him some more? What if the child repeats the offence a third time? A fourth? A fifth? A sixth? A seventh? Get the drift? As many times as it takes. Behavior is repeated if gets the desired results. A childwill throw a temper tantrum if in the end they get what they want. A quick cure is to calmy announce to the child that you are not going to give in but will wait until they are done. Sure, it takes courage to stand and wait while your child thrashes yelling and screaming on the floor in the middle of the shopping mall but in the end the child will stop and will probably never do it again. And your solution is to spank them after a given number of times? As I said, most studies are flawed at the early stages. That is one of the reasons for peer review. Getting better results with positive reinforcement as compared to negative reinforcement is not a new idea. Not hitting a child is not an experiment. We trust flawed studies all the time. We all know that an airplane gets its lift from the shape of the wing. Except that is not correct. It is a flawed explanation yet the data that supports it is valid. I did not say their conclusions are beyond reproach. I said that by looking at all of the data one can draw vaild conclusions. Look at all the studies. How many find spanking to be positive compared to the number that find it to be negative? There is no need to pick a single study to be 100% correct. If 100 people look at a photograph and say it is out of focus, even though 75 of them need corrective glasses, it would be reasonable to conclude that the photo was out of focus. Unless, of course, you think all of the studies were done by people who only want to show that spanking is bad and there were no studies done in an attempt to justify the act. Yes the studies are flawed. But the data that is available does point out that spanking is harmful. There is no data to show that it is not harmful or beneficial. No data or data that has been collected but may not be 100% correct. Which allows the better decision to be made? I do not tell people they must not spank. I only ask how can people believe that causing pain and using that to teach can be effective. How can you teach a child not to hit by hitting them. How do you teach a child to respect others by hitting them? You cannot teach anything with negative reinforcement except pain avoidance. Capital punishment is intended to prevent people from committing some crime because of the severity of the punishment. It is exactly like spanking which is also a way get a child to change their behavior to avoid the pain. It is not my experience. It is my belief that an adult should not intentionally hurt a child to teach them a lesson. In any case, I doubt we will agree on this. I do, however, thank you for the time you have taken in responding. I am 100%certain you love your children and want only the best for them. Maybe the next time, just before you spank one of them, stop for 10 secondsand consider the act from the child's POV and ask yourself if there might be just one more thing to try before resorting to egative reinforcement. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by BenF on May 20, 2006 2:16:22 GMT -5
I believe that it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "spare the rod & spoil the child". And he was quoting the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Who on May 20, 2006 2:19:34 GMT -5
Listen unto the words of Paul: "Spare the rod and spoil the child". When did Paul say this?
|
|
|
Post by Not abuse on May 20, 2006 2:24:13 GMT -5
There is a noticable absence of formerly abused children posting here-those folks would have credible opposition to spanking if there was actual legaly defined abuse in there past. Y'all need to get off yer high horses! Spanking is not abuse. It is, however, inflicting pain to modify behavior. I don't think anyone has said spanking was abuse except bullwhip.
|
|
|
Post by Loose on May 20, 2006 2:26:05 GMT -5
Listen unto the words of Paul: "Spare the rod and spoil the child". What verse are you talking about paul wrote this Maybe a poet.The phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child" is often incorrectly attributed to the Christian Bible. It does not appear there. It was first written in a poem by Samuel Butler in 1664. Proverbs 30: 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar It would seem to be a loose translation of He that spareth his rod hateth his son...
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 20, 2006 11:07:09 GMT -5
"I think I do understand"
You said: "As many times as it takes" and "And your solution is to spank them after a given number of times?" My response is this: At times I have used spanking to overcome the stubborness of human will in my children. I will not badger my children with ineffective methods; THAT is abuse. Benjamin Franklin said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
You said "it takes courage to stand and wait while your child thrashes yelling and screaming on the floor in the middle of the shopping mall but in the end the child will stop and will probably never do it again." My response is this: You will be pleased to know that over the last several years, I have witnessed more and more of this behavior in public. In the past, I have always seen it as a sign that yet another parent is afraid of their child. Now though, after discussing the matter with you, I will know that I am witnessing yet another parent doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
You said "Not hitting a child is not an experiment." My response is this: The institutionalized support, in academia, medicine, and government, of withholding spanking in favor of simply "waiting it out" is new (experimental) relative to the long-held practice of spanking.
You said "We trust flawed studies all the time" and "by looking at all of the data one can draw vaild conclusions" My response is this: Unfortunately, we do trust flawed studies and consequently hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people have paid with their lives, and all because politics, personal biases, prejudice, and ignorance stand as obstructions to the honest integrity of science. If 100 studies are performed and they all rely on defective data to come to their conclusions, then the conclusions of all 100 studies cannot be trusted. If you build 100 houses on the sands of a beach, do you somehow expect to find refuge in the resulting rubble a year later? Not only is it unscientific, but it is pure folly to pick and choose conclusions derived from defective data to suit your own agenda. Furthermore: For example, try this: Do some research on DDT; Compare old DDT safety studies to new DDT safety studies, then look at the cases where DDT would have saved lives but was not considered as an option, all due to the unfounded histeria of past flawed studies.
You said "If 100 people look at a photograph and say it is out of focus, even though 75 of them need corrective glasses, it would be reasonable to conclude that the photo was out of focus." My response is this: "If 100 people look at a photograph and say it is out of focus, and all 100 of them need corrective glasses, it is impossible to determine whether or not the photograph is out of focus." (Your analogy asserts that 25% of anti-spanking studies are not flawed.)
You said "I do not tell people they must not spank." My response is this: You refer to spanking as "beating", "hitting", and "physical abuse" and you compare it to capital punishment. You spin the term to cast it as negatively as possible. I said "YOU DO tell people that they MUST NOT spank." This was my brief way of saying "YOU DO tell people that if they spank their child, they are the scourge of the earth; an ABUSIVE PARENT and MURDERER."
You said: "[Capital punishment] is exactly like spanking". My response is this: I suppose then that you also think that "Nuking a city is exactly like arresting the mayor."
Editorial:
This debate reminds me of the only time I ever spanked my daughter. (I have two sons and one daughter, all grown now. My daughter was the youngest.) She was almost a year old and was learning to crawl. She found an electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I told her "no" but she persisted. I told her "no" again and moved her to the center of the room but seconds later she was at it again. I told her "no" yet again, spanked her padded behind twice, and again moved her to the center of the room.
She cried for a minute then made her way over to me, seeking comfort. I picked her up, showed her the electrical outlet and repeated "no". I still remember the expression on her face and the way she lurched into my arms, hugging my neck, something she often did when happy or excited.
That was all it took. The entire ordeal was over in three minutes. She never again bothered the electrical outlets and she gained a serious respect for a firmly spoken "no". I thank God for the tender heart and mind of children who learn quickly. (My two stubborn sons know why I say this.)
|
|