NationStates Jolt Archive

i'm really just wondering whatever happened to being able to discipline our kids with corporal punishment (a depressing word for, essentially, spankings) in school or even in our own houses. anyone else wondering that?

i do live in California, US, just for clarification.

That God damn UCLA..

That God damn UCLA..

You mean God blessed UCLA..

That God damn UCLA..

the ACLU?

You mean God blessed UCLA..

Hell to the no!

the ACLU?

That might have been what I meant to say..

the ACLU?

the ACLU can burn in their own hell theyve created...

That might have been what I meant to say..

right. because UCLA lost to Florida State on Wednesday.

Hell to the no!

Hell to the yes, fool!

right. because UCLA lost to Florida State on Wednesday.

Yup.

ACLU, yes.

Hell to the yes, fool!

No!

If you have to hit your child more than on very rare occasion, you're a piss-poor parent or teacher, and deserve the brats you end up with.

Hell to the yes, fool!

Who's going to hell?:)

Who's going to hell?:)

You wouldn't happen to be PedroTheSquirrel come back to life, would you?

if yes, How you doin'? If no, as you were.

If you have to hit your child more than on very rare occasion, you're a piss-poor parent or teacher, and deserve the brats you end up with.

how often is a very rare occasion? and saying that someone who does that is a "piss-poor parent and teacher" claims that the actions of the child arent the child's responsibility, the opposite of what discipline tries to instill.

You wouldn't happen to be PedroTheSquirrel come back to life, would you?

if yes, How you doin'? If no, as you were.

No. I'm not the squirel. And I'm half willing to bet you are thinking of PabloTheSquirrel.

No!


:( I lose.

how often is a very rare occasion? and saying that someone who does that is a "piss-poor parent and teacher" claims that the actions of the child arent the child's responsibility, the opposite of what discipline tries to instill.

very rare occasion would mean maybe 5 times in the childs life, if that often.

And no, it has nothing to do with the child's responsibility. Children mess up. That is inevitable. There are dozens of ways to discipline a child. If your parenting or teaching method is so poor that you have to resort to hitting the child to regain control, you have failed.

If you have nothing more than hitting in your arsenal, you are a piss-poor parent or teacher.

The only time you need to hit is when you have no other option. Time outs, groundings, hell, even yelling are all better options than hitting. Hitting should be reserved as a last resort. If you find yourself constantly hitting your child, it is time to look at what YOU are doing wrong, not the child.

No. I'm not the squirel. And I'm half willing to bet you are thinking of PabloTheSquirrel.

And you would be correct in that bet. But you are clearly someone who would remember the old guy...which makes me have to wonder who...I only know a handful of people around here who remember him...

very rare occasion would mean maybe 5 times in the childs life, if that often.

And no, it has nothing to do with the child's responsibility. Children mess up. That is inevitable. There are dozens of ways to discipline a child. If your parenting or teaching method is so poor that you have to resort to hitting the child to regain control, you have failed.

If you have nothing more than hitting in your arsenal, you are a piss-poor parent or teacher.

The only time you need to hit is when you have no other option. Time outs, groundings, hell, even yelling are all better options than hitting. Hitting should be reserved as a last resort. If you find yourself constantly hitting your child, it is time to look at what YOU are doing wrong, not the child.Word! :D

very rare occasion would mean maybe 5 times in the childs life, if that often.

And no, it has nothing to do with the child's responsibility. Children mess up. That is inevitable. There are dozens of ways to discipline a child. If your parenting or teaching method is so poor that you have to resort to hitting the child to regain control, you have failed.

If you have nothing more than hitting in your arsenal, you are a piss-poor parent or teacher.

The only time you need to hit is when you have no other option. Time outs, groundings, hell, even yelling are all better options than hitting. Hitting should be reserved as a last resort. If you find yourself constantly hitting your child, it is time to look at what YOU are doing wrong, not the child.

yes, timeouts and groundings and suspensions... looking at the current system in place in schools, id say thats working just fine, right? overlooking all of the syntaxes with our current system, youve pointed out multiple ways of disciplining children without hitting them. so how well do these work compared to corporal punishment, aka spankings?

and youve pointed out again that children often act out, but ill again make the argument that discipline is about teaching children ultimate responsibility for their actions, instead of creating children that only fear punishment and dont account for their responsibility.

to add to my argument, its a punishable offense now for teachers to administer this kind of punishment in the classroom... and i know for a fact it is also punishable if a parent/guardian administers this kind of punishment as well.

also, if anyone wants to have a go at it, id like to expand the definition of corporal punishment a bit... because there have been many cases where the punishment did not involve any sort of physical violence.

And you would be correct in that bet. But you are clearly someone who would remember the old guy...which makes me have to wonder who...I only know a handful of people around here who remember him...

:D Good luck.

yes, timeouts and groundings and suspensions... looking at the current system in place in schools, id say thats working just fine, right? overlooking all of the syntaxes with our current system, youve pointed out multiple ways of disciplining children without hitting them. so how well do these work compared to corporal punishment, aka spankings?Actually, for the majority of students and children, they work fine. Actually, corporal punishment has been shown to create more issues, not less.I was hit once in my entire life. And it was undeserved. I turned out fine.

These methods work atleast as well as others. Teaching a child what they did wrong is more important than making them afraid to cross a line. It is important that they actually think about what they are doing, rather than thinking about how hard they will be hit if they do it.

and youve pointed out again that children often act out, but ill again make the argument that discipline is about teaching children ultimate responsibility for their actions, instead of creating children that only fear punishment and dont account for their responsibility.And somehow, slapping a child teaches them to actually consider their actions rather than fear the consequence? Sorry, hitting a child does the exact opposite. Talking with a child about what they did and why is far more important. Often, a child has the right intention, but the wrong action.

If the child at that moment is so out of control that you cannot get them back under control, a light swat on the butt is fine. Beyond that, you have failed to teach anything, and have resorted to fear rather than discipline.

to add to my argument, its a punishable offense now for teachers to administer this kind of punishment in the classroom... and i know for a fact it is also punishable if a parent/guardian administers this kind of punishment as well.

also, if anyone wants to have a go at it, id like to expand the definition of corporal punishment a bit... because there have been many cases where the punishment did not involve any sort of physical violence.Oh good...so now, instead of just supporting physical abuse, you'll expand it to include emotional abuse/physical abuse.

:D Good luck.

haha...my memory of the old guard is weak...I was just a lurker back in those days.

Bah. If I can't hit my wife, you can't hit your kids..:mad:

Bah. If I can't hit my wife, you can't hit your kids..:mad:

lol. QFT

Oh good...so now, instead of just supporting physical abuse, you'll expand it to include emotional abuse/physical abuse.


that wasnt really my intent... i wasnt exactly specifying emotional abuse, just saying that it wasnt exactly physical punishment as well.

im really saying, not just spankings, but not torturous emotional abuse as well.

i'm really just wondering whatever happened to being able to discipline our kids with corporal punishment (a depressing word for, essentially, spankings) in school or even in our own houses. anyone else wondering that?

Effective child psychology, that's what. Striking children teaches all the wrong lessons. The only reason you could ever have to use violence as a form of discipline is if you had the need to gain control of a situation well out of control and didn't have time to calm it in a slower fashion. That would be, say, if you child was attacking another child.

If you need violence to control your child you're a pretty pissy parent anyway.

Dear me!
Fcuk*** hell!

How could you dare put your own hand on your kids?
What a disgrace, poor uncivilized dirty people.

They are tools for that.

in summation of my first contention, is corporal punishment of any kind ever acceptable?

Hitting your child doesn't stop them from acting out. It just makes them come up with different ways of not being caught so they don't have to be hit again.

My brother was constantly 'abused' as a child; spanked, whipped, beat, etc. He never stopped acting up though, he kept on doing what he was doing, but tried keeping it a secret so he wouldn't get a beat down.

I was never spanked, beaten, or whipped except for one time, and it was the most undeserved punishment; all I did, and I'm sure most of you will agree it isn't grounds for being whipped, was yell "shutup" at my brother, and within the next five minutes my father cornered me in my bedroom with no way to escape, and whipped me with a leather belt over the thigh seven times. I still have the scar.

that wasnt really my intent... i wasnt exactly specifying emotional abuse, just saying that it wasnt exactly physical punishment as well.

im really saying, not just spankings, but not torturous emotional abuse as well.

There is gravely little difference between emotional abuse and torturous emotional abuse. Ditto that for physical.

The fact of the matter is, a swat on the butt isn't going to get you into trouble, nor is a grab of the arm or other shocking, but not particularly painful, method won't get you into trouble. It still shouldn't be a primary method, or even secondary.

Hitting your child doesn't stop them from acting out. It just makes them come up with different ways of not being caught so they don't have to be hit again.

My brother was constantly 'abused' as a child; spanked, whipped, beat, etc. He never stopped acting up though, he kept on doing what he was doing, but tried keeping it a secret so he wouldn't get a beat down.

I was never spanked, beaten, or whipped except for one time, and it was the most undeserved punishment; all I did, and I'm sure most of you will agree it isn't grounds for being whipped, was yell "shutup" at my brother, and within the next five minutes my father cornered me in my bedroom with no way to escape, and whipped me with a leather belt over the thigh seven times. I still have the scar.

now we're quantifying child abuse with capital punishment...

Effective child psychology, that's what. Striking children teaches all the wrong lessons. The only reason you could ever have to use violence as a form of discipline is if you had the need to gain control of a situation well out of control and didn't have time to calm it in a slower fashion. That would be, say, if you child was attacking another child.

If you need violence to control your child you're a pretty pissy parent anyway.
hear, hear.
now we're quantifying child abuse with capital punishment...

No, with corporal punishment. And the two are one in the same.

Is it (as stated perfectly by KSP) rarely acceptable? Yes. Is it right? never. By the time you have to resort to a physical punishment, you have already failed.

in summation of my first contention, is corporal punishment of any kind ever acceptable?

It's great in the army and the navy.

The british used it in the oldy times to make their millitary the most feared in the world.

Corporal punishment = child abuse, and visa versa.

Corporal punishment = child abuse, and visa versa.

so, essentially, its not a form of punishment but simply abuse?

No, with corporal punishment.

yeah, sorry 'bout that folks, im just a little tired.

so, essentially, its not a form of punishment but simply abuse?abuse is always a form of punishment. Punishment, however, does not have to be abuse. When you cross the line into abuse, something is wrong.

yeah, sorry 'bout that folks, im just a little tired.
sok. understandable.

so, essentially, its not a form of punishment but simply abuse?It's both.

abuse is always a form of punishment. Punishment, however, does not have to be abuse. When you cross the line into abuse, something is wrong.

there are times when "parents" beat (and berate) their children senseless for no reason, but i understand your argument nonetheless.

there are times when "parents" beat (and berate) their children senseless for no reason, but i understand your argument nonetheless.

Even then, I would argue that it is punishment. Not justified, but punishment none the less.

Even then, I would argue that it is punishment. Not justified, but punishment none the less.

if it is justified, then? im really just wondering your take on it

if it is justified, then? im really just wondering your take on it

My personal take is that it is almost never justified. When you have to resort to hitting a child, you have lost control. As KSP said, a situation where you have lost control and don't have time to regain it by other methods: the child is hurting someone else, the child is in danger, that kind of thing.

Basically, the only time I can justify hitting a child is when you have lost control and need to regain it immediatly, or you have tried every single other method you know, and still cannot regain control of the situation. Even then, it should be the most mild hit you can afford (a swat, as opposed to a lashing.)

My personal take is that it is almost never justified. When you have to resort to hitting a child, you have lost control. As KSP said, a situation where you have lost control and don't have time to regain it by other methods: the child is hurting someone else, the child is in danger, that kind of thing.

Basically, the only time I can justify hitting a child is when you have lost control and need to regain it immediatly, or you have tried every single other method you know, and still cannot regain control of the situation.

ah. see, theres the rub, because i know of a person that was almost arrested twice because of situations involving total loss of control because, well, the child was completely defiant.

ah. see, theres the rub, because i know of a person that was almost arrested twice because of situations involving total loss of control because, well, the child was completely defiant.

*shrug*
my best friend has PTSD because of being hit as a child. There are always two sides to the coin, and really, without knowing the whole story, I can't pass judgement.

If you raise your kids right, you won't have to hit them because they will just fall into line and do as you instruct the first time. Of course, that's a best-case scenario, and as spoiled as children are these days, it's really hard to pull off.

If you raise your kids right, you won't have to hit them because they will just fall into line and do as you instruct the first time. Of course, that's a best-case scenario, and as spoiled as children are these days, it's really hard to pull off.True, with 95% of all children with a TV, computer, internet access, cell phone and iPod, they most certainly are. :eek:

spanking your own kid aside for a moment...

why would you ever want to authorize that any adult in your child's school can hit them for any reason? thats giving them a license for abuse.

My personal take is that it is almost never justified. When you have to resort to hitting a child, you have lost control. As KSP said, a situation where you have lost control and don't have time to regain it by other methods: the child is hurting someone else, the child is in danger, that kind of thing.

Basically, the only time I can justify hitting a child is when you have lost control and need to regain it immediatly, or you have tried every single other method you know, and still cannot regain control of the situation. Even then, it should be the most mild hit you can afford (a swat, as opposed to a lashing.)

there is never really a time when your child needs to be hit. its only "ok" when, as you say, you need an immediate obedience from your child and you cant think of anything else. it still represents a failure as a parent but its not the worst thing in the world.

True, with 95% of all children with a TV, computer, internet access, cell phone and iPod, they most certainly are. :eek:

I wouldn't even say that's what's spoiling them; it's the attitude that they can get whatever they want by whining and pouting for it and that their parents will just give in to their demands. Granted, some things are becoming more and more necessary (schoolwork can be difficult without the internet, and a cell phone does help cut down on panic moments) but kids throw fits if their parents don't wait in line for 60 straight hours without food or water and pay upwards of $600 for a PlayStation 3, and the parents let them continue their idiocy rather than telling them in no uncertain terms, "You're not getting a PlayStation 3, and if you whine at me about it one more time, you're grounded for the next two months!"

I wouldn't even say that's what's spoiling them; it's the attitude that they can get whatever they want by whining and pouting for it and that their parents will just give in to their demands. Granted, some things are becoming more and more necessary (schoolwork can be difficult without the internet, and a cell phone does help cut down on panic moments) but kids throw fits if their parents don't wait in line for 60 straight hours without food or water and pay upwards of $600 for a PlayStation 3, and the parents let them continue their idiocy rather than telling them in no uncertain terms, "You're not getting a PlayStation 3, and if you whine at me about it one more time, you're grounded for the next two months!"

in part to blame are the kid haters, if you are in Target and it's crowded and you say no to your kid they know that the kid haters will start rolling their eyes and making stupid comments so all they have to do is get really loud until you are embarrassed enough to buy them something to shut them up.

that doesn't work with me though, my kids know that

a I don't care what the other people say
and
b If they can't act right we will just leave.

not that my kids have thrown very many fits, it's pretty boring when there isn't a reaction that they are seeking and even more pointless when they have the freedom to buy what they want (provided they earn the privilege)

If they can't act right we will just leave.

If more parents would do that, the world would be a better place. Frankly, kids who are too young to know better should not be brought out in public like that. Not to church, not to stores, not to soccer games, and certainly not to restaurants. Beyond that, if the kid should know better but still creates a scene, if it's still in the early stages of a potential problem, the parent should issue one warning, but if it's out of hand, then the parent should grab the kid, walk out without buying anything, and that would be the end of it.

If Mom, Dad, and three kids aged around 10 are out eating dinner at Chi-Chi's or someplace and one kid acts up, Mom and Dad usually don't do anything about it and let the other patrons suffer because damnit, it's their right to let their kids "be kids." Ideally, the minute it gets the least bit out of hand, they should round up the kids, ship them all home, cook a meal they don't particularly like, and send the offending child up to their room without dinner. This way, the offending kid is punished worst, and the other kids get a taste of "This is what happens when you misbehave. Sucks, doesn't it?" And any taking it out on the offending kid would be allowed within reason. Physical assault, destruction of property, or sabotage of homework would not be allowed, but if the other two kids get mad at the offender and refuse to...hmm, I would say refusing to let the offending kid play with them, but kids are often so solitary that the parents would have to come up with something more creative that doesn't involve the kids. But I would completely understand if the innocent kids didn't talk to their offending sibling for a while.