NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a fierce opponent of corporal punishment (smacking, whipping, caning etc). However, I know that many people still advocate smacking of children, and some will even support it in the judicial and educational systems too. So, I was just wondering, what do you think of corporal punishment? A necessary part of being a good parent, or a violation of rights?

I am against when parents spank their kids and hurt them. Getting spanked isn't about getting hurt, it's about punishment. When I was disciplined as a child, I knew damn well better not to do what I did again. Not because of the pain of being hit, but because I knew I was being punished for doing something wrong. So, I think it beneficial to me. When I look around at a lot of kids, even those my age, they're all very undisciplined and rude. If you ask them, probably 80% weren't spanked or whatever. I'm not saying all kids who are not spanked are asses, but the majority of them seem to be.

I don't support, however, teachers beating kids in classrooms and the like. However, I almost wish teachers were allowed the backhand a kid every now and then.

I was smacked as a child. My siblings and I all turned out better than anyone else in the neighborhood. It has its uses in moderation.

I was smacked as a child. My siblings and I all turned out better than anyone else in the neighborhood. It has its uses in moderation.

My grandmother had a thing for pulling my ear whenever I did something she didn't like, which was quite often, and I turned out like shit.

I think that perhaps anecdotal evidence here, just like everywhere else, is worthless.

I'm in favour of spanking/arse-slapping as a punishment (obviously, not to the extent that you leave marks on your kids), and of constables being able to give the young 'uns a clip round the ear if they're caught doing something they shouldn't be.

In my view, it's the fear of pain that stops you doing it again - you don't do it because you don't want to get hurt.

I wouldn't say no to the dap being used in schools again though, and a teacher I know can still send board-rubbers whistling past pupils heads with some awesome accuracy. She keeps a few empty cupboards around the room for that purpose.

I am against when parents spank their kids and hurt them. Getting spanked isn't about getting hurt, it's about punishment. When I was disciplined as a child, I knew damn well better not to do what I did again. Not because of the pain of being hit, but because I knew I was being punished for doing something wrong.

Surely then, since it wasn't the pain that disciplined you, another method which involved no pain but was just as undesirable would be just as effective?

I am a big fan of being spanked, caned, flogged or otherwise punished in a corporal manner.

Spanking should be used only when all other methods fail. Then it should be used with restraint. Most kids respond well to things like time outs and being deprived of treats, provided they're applied consistently. But there are some (very few) kids that are impervious to anything but corporal punishment: some don't even respond to that.

spanking is a failure of parenting.

its not the worst thing you can do (given all the reasonable givens) but its never necessary and indicates that you let the situation get out of hand before acting on it.

or that you dont have a clue about better discipline techiniques.

Hey, worked on me. Ask, Ask, Tell, Smack.

I don't see my father to be a failure in parenting at all - he's one of the most supportive guys to anyone that I know, and is about all a father can be. The fact that he spanked me when I misbehaved, in my mind, makes no stain on his character.

or that you dont have a clue about better discipline techiniques.

When Sweden banned corporal punishment altogether in 1979, the Swedish government sent out a leaflet to every household detailing what effect the spanking ban would have and how to raise kids otherwise. Since 1979, the number of people in Sweden supporting corporal punishment has decreased dramatically.

Maybe, one day, everybody will know...:)

If done properly then the kid will turn out fine, if done improperly then the kid will probably be screwed up for the rest of his life.

I was never hit as a kid, and instead denied things as punishment, which I think works a lot better than hitting your kid.

Corporal punishment is wrong for many reasons. It's wrong because it's cruel and it hurts. Children are human beings, not pets (and I don't even support beating pets) or toys. They have rights, and as such no one is entitled to hit them.

But the worse is the moral it creates. It doesn't teach children why they should act in a way or another. It doesn't even make children understand that you, as a parent, is more wise and may know what's good for them. It just teaches them to obey to physical strength. And that's very, very wrong. If a child has to obey his parents, because they are stronger and can beat him, why doesn't he have the right to make younger kids obey to him, using his superior physical strength ? There is no way you can explain that to a kid.

Authority can have two forms.

It can be the violent authority, the one imposed by physical strength. This authority is a brutal one, it's the form of authority wield by tyrants, and to a point, by police forces of every country. It may be needed in some exceptional cases, but this authority is mostly illegitimate, it's domination, abuse of physical strength. And education should teach children to challenge this form violent authority, not to obey blindly to it !

But it can be obeying to someone, to a point, because you trust him/her. I'll, to a point, obey to my doctor or to my lawyer (well, I don't have one but still) because I trust him/her. I'll obey to my boss because I consider that (most of the time) he makes better decision than me on business aspects. But all those have to work in both ways. I trust my boss on business decisions, but he trusts me on technical decisions (I'm a computer science engineer). And so on. This form of authority, obeying to someone because you know (on this specific field/issue, maybe) he's more wise than you can only work with mutual respect, and a strong sense of common interest. And that's the kind of authority that should exist between parents and children. It is much more difficult to reach. But it's way better, both for the well-being of the child as a child, and for the long-term consequences.

And if you follow the second path, you don't need to ever hit your child. Just raising your voice/changing your tone will have the same "oh oh I crossed a line" effect, when it's really needed. But every time you use the first kind of authority, every kind you use mere physical strength to impose your will, you undermine the second form of authority, the one based on mutual respect and trust.

Edit: I was never, never hit by my parents, nor were my siblings, and we all got out very well, with high diplomas, as good and generous persons, and none of us ever had any serious trouble. So well, it does work :)

Some of those punishments are ouch (like my dad using belt with buckle to whip my butt), some are trivial (like my mom hitting my lips when I said something really really really bad), but I don't think they should be banned in homes. In schools, probably. But in homes, probably not. Each parent has their own parenting styles.Too much legislation on how parents should bring up their children is micromanaging.

There is a blurry area between child abuse and the more severe forms of corporal punishment, but yes, the less severe forms should still remain an option.

I am a fierce opponent of corporal punishment (smacking, whipping, caning etc). However, I know that many people still advocate smacking of children, and some will even support it in the judicial and educational systems too. So, I was just wondering, what do you think of corporal punishment? A necessary part of being a good parent, or a violation of rights?

Corporal punishment does nothing but instill fear on children while teaching them to resolve problems through violence when they grow up. Even if it is an easier way for the parents with immediate results, corporal punishment is never a mean to an end. We can see this in today's society. It isn't like crime or violence have gone up after we abandon corporal punishment, in fact there seems to be a decline. So why bring it back?

That being said, I am not completely against it. I just don't trust most parents to be responsible enough to use it "under control". Children are getting abused, beaten, and killed everyday. Why promote it more?

In my view, it's the fear of pain that stops you doing it again - you don't do it because you don't want to get hurt.

That means you utterly failed, as a parent, to build a trust relationship to your kids. That means you denied them of part of their humanity, and tried to convert them into Pavlov dogs, reacting to fear. That means your kid will not understand what they did wrong (they'll just fear it's unfair), so they'll do it again as soon as they hope they won't get catched. And that means that the values you're giving to them is "obey to physical strength, accept abuses of power, don't challenge them". The exact opposite of what the education of a free human being should be. Unfairness, abuse of physical strength has to be challenged, not obeyed by fear !

Corporal punishment does nothing but instill fear on children while teaching them to resolve problems through violence when they grow up. Even if it is an easier way for the parents with immediate results, corporal punishment is never a mean to an end. We can see this in today's society. It isn't like crime or violence have gone up after we abandon corporal punishment, in fact there seems to be a decline. So why bring it back?

That being said, I am not completely against it. I just don't trust most parents to be responsible enough to use it "under control". Children are getting abused, beaten, and killed everyday. Why promote it more?

I see no reason to solve things through violence. I was spanked as a child. It's the same with all my younger siblings. All male, all spanked. Yet none of us believe that beating the snot out of someone is an acceptable way of dealing with things.

That means you utterly failed, as a parent, to build a trust relationship to your kids. That means you denied them of part of their humanity, and tried to convert them into Pavlov dogs, reacting to fear. That means your kid will not understand what they did wrong (they'll just fear it's unfair), so they'll do it again as soon as they hope they won't get catched. And that means that the values you're giving to them is "obey to physical strength, accept abuses of power, don't challenge them". The exact opposite of what the education of a free human being should be. Unfairness, abuse of physical strength has to be challenged, not obeyed by fear !

I don't have kids.

I see no reason to solve things through violence. I was spanked as a child. It's the same with all my younger siblings. All male, all spanked. Yet none of us believe that beating the snot out of someone is an acceptable way of dealing with things.

You believe it is a way to deal with children, that is, the weakest, and most fragile (both physically and psychologically) human beings. That's wrong enough.

I agree with Corporal Punishment. Today most of the youths in my area are yobs who go around beating up kid and pensioners knowns nothing will happen. When I was a kid if I beat up an old person the follwing 3 things would happen:

1) The local police officer would give me a clip around the ear
2) My dad would give me a clip around the ear
3) The old person's son would give me a clip around the ear

At the moment the follwing 3 things happening to local yobs would be:

1) The policeman would have to give a verbal warning but not touch the child as he is underage. All the while the yob would be shouting abuse or/and throwing things at the policeman.

2) The yobs chav dad would throw a party for his kid's police run-in

3) The pensioner's son would be scared that if he gave the yob a clip then he would get arrested by the police.


I think that corporal punishment should be back in schools and socity in general.

For example in my area some youths were given an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order) by police. What did they do? They had a party to celebrate that they had ASBO's! Some corporal punishment shuch as a cane, flogging etc would change that!

Edit: I was never, never hit by my parents, nor were my siblings, and we all got out very well, with high diplomas, as good and generous persons, and none of us ever had any serious trouble. So well, it does work :)

I was spanked by my parents - generally it was once or twice on the arse or legs, outstretched palm, and I am going to university next year to study for a degree in chemical engineering.

I've done well throughout school and college, have never been in trouble with the law, and am a member of NAGTY (National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth). So well, it does work.

Each parent has their own parenting styles.

And ? Children don't belong to parents. They are not pets or toys. They are human beings, and as weak ones, they deserve protection from the society.

What's the difference between this reasoning and the one saying "well, every couple has its styles, and if a husband beats his wife, it's his choice" ? It may be hard to enforce a legal ban on kid spanking, as it is hard to enforce a legal ban on violence done on women - but it doesn't mean it's not right to do it. This violence (done on kids or on women, that is, done on any human being who is living with you and in a situation, for different reasons, of weakness) should be fought against with all our strength.

So well, it does work.

I was saying it's useless. You don't need it. So, useless and inflicting pain, it should not be done. As simple as that.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

I see no reason to solve things through violence. I was spanked as a child. It's the same with all my younger siblings. All male, all spanked. Yet none of us believe that beating the snot out of someone is an acceptable way of dealing with things.

Being spanked vs getting beaten to the point where case worker coming into your house for child abuse charges are 2 different thing. I am fairly certain in the second case it will cause mental damage to the child. So there's no reason to loosen child abuse laws at this point of time. And corporal punish shouldn't be encouraged because even now, people are doing it anyway.

So, I was just wondering, what do you think of corporal punishment? A necessary part of being a good parent, or a violation of rights?
Neither.

Hitting children to punish them is a terrible idea, but I don’t see how getting hit violates any natural right.

When I was a kid if I beat up an old person the follwing 3 things would happen...
Even if the police or your parents inflicted extra-judicial punishment on you, you’d be tried in a court of law, back then and now.

Debate isn’t helped by you spouting nonsense with no bearing on reality.

I was spanked by my parents - generally it was once or twice on the arse or legs, outstretched palm, and I am going to university next year to study for a degree in chemical engineering.

I've done well throughout school and college, have never been in trouble with the law, and am a member of NAGTY (National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth). So well, it does work.

To both of you, correlation≠causation

I don't know whether it constitutes corporal punishment, but I'm not against a slight slap on the wrist to gain a child's attention. If a child is pretty much oblivious to world around him or her then using as many senses to gain their attention and reinforce the message helps.

It's a common practice in teaching to try an stimulate as many senses as possible in when teaching so that the message sticks with the pupil and helps out people who respond better to different stimuli.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

"Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, But roaring Bill, who killed him, thought it right."

Hillare Belloc

I agree with Corporal Punishment. Today most of the youths in my area are yobs who go around beating up kid and pensioners knowns nothing will happen.

Yeah, it's sure that with added violence people will be less violent...

I don't know where you live, but I do live in a suburb which has some violence problems. The problem is definitely not in kids not receiving corporal punishment (most are). The problem is about the falling of the social tissue, due to economical and social reasons (massive poverty, both parents working a lot of hours, or not working at all and struggling to pay the food, ...), and mostly because of the feeling of rejecting, of hostility, they receive from the society.

The problem is in parents being either too busy or overwhelmed with their own problems to take care of their children. It is about children being hopeless about their future (and my mother, as a teacher in a nearby school, witnesses it every day, how hopeless those kids/teens are, most of them sure to end up, like their parents, doing crappy jobs in ghetto-like building, struggling to pay their food and harassed by the police because they happen to have the wrong skin color).

The violence of the society creates violent people. It's not by adding violence inside the home (or school) that you'll prevent that - it's by attacking to the core the economical and social problems, it's by developing the "left wing of the state" (education, welfare, health care, public services) and showing them that the society is not just the cop harassing them and the president spending 1 year of minimal wage in a one-week holiday.

Click Stand;13334053']To both of you, correlation≠causation

I may have not be totally clear. I wasn't using my own case to say "corporal punishment is bad", but to say "it is possible to educate your kids well without them". And for that, a single example is enough. Since they are inherently a bad thing (they make people suffer), and it is possible to do without them, you should do without them. It may be more complex, but that's what our brains and this discussion are for :)

And ? Children don't belong to parents. They are not pets or toys. They are human beings, and as weak ones, they deserve protection from the society.

What's the difference between this reasoning and the one saying "well, every couple has its styles, and if a husband beats his wife, it's his choice" ? It may be hard to enforce a legal ban on kid spanking, as it is hard to enforce a legal ban on violence done on women - but it doesn't mean it's not right to do it. This violence (done on kids or on women, that is, done on any human being who is living with you and in a situation, for different reasons, of weakness) should be fought against with all our strength.
The enforcement depends on what is deemed to be "violence". For me wife battery (which is out of topic) is violence. Whipping a child repeatedly is violence, but a tug on the ear, no. Let's extend this further. "Violence" extends may not just be physical, it can even be psychological. A tug on the ear is probably more preferable to public humiliation by parents calling their children harsh names.

Corporal punishment does nothing but instill fear on children while teaching them to resolve problems through violence when they grow up. Even if it is an easier way for the parents with immediate results, corporal punishment is never a mean to an end. We can see this in today's society. It isn't like crime or violence have gone up after we abandon corporal punishment, in fact there seems to be a decline. So why bring it back?

That being said, I am not completely against it. I just don't trust most parents to be responsible enough to use it "under control". Children are getting abused, beaten, and killed everyday. Why promote it more?

Exactly. We need to move into the 21st Century and remember that kids have rights too. :)

I don't know whether it constitutes corporal punishment, but I'm not against a slight slap on the wrist to gain a child's attention. If a child is pretty much oblivious to world around him or her then using as many senses to gain their attention and reinforce the message helps.

It's a common practice in teaching to try an stimulate as many senses as possible in when teaching so that the message sticks with the pupil and helps out people who respond better to different stimuli.

You don't have to hit for that. For example, you can grab him and stare him in his eyes, to make him understand it's a serious issue and you're not joking. Using physical contact to grab attention is completely different from hitting and inflicting pain.

The enforcement depends on what is deemed to be "violence". For me wife battery (which is out of topic) is violence. Whipping a child repeatedly is violence, but a tug on the ear, no. Let's extend this further. "Violence" extends may not just be physical, it can even be psychological. A tug on the ear is probably more preferable to public humiliation by parents calling their children harsh names.

Parents should definitely not call their children harsh names - they should show respect to them. And they definitely should keep the "you behaved bad I'm not happy" talks to private situations.

Edit: I saved to quickly, my point was: of course, physical violence is not the only wrong thing, and may not be the worse. But that worse things can exist doesn't mean it's justified.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -Salvor Hardin.

'nuff said. *nod*

I agree with Corporal Punishment. Today most of the youths in my area are yobs who go around beating up kid and pensioners knowns nothing will happen.

Question: Has that increased since the placement of child abuse laws? Or has there always the same amount of problems with youth? I understand that you might want to see them punished, but I seriously doubt that a good old fashion beatin' form their parents will stop them from doing the same thing next day. As far as the pensioner's son going up to hit the kid? Well that was outside of corporal punishment to begin with. That was just assault.

That aside, even without lawful restriction, what makes you think the child's parents would use corporal punishments anyway? They sound more like the spoiled kids who never even gotten a time out in their life to me.

That aside, this whole "corporal punishment is banned so kids are turning bad because they are not getting beaten" is a myth. Truth is kids are getting beaten everyday and caseworker and constantly overworked. Nobody got their kid taken away unless the person beaten his/her kid so severely that they deem "life threatening", or do not have the financial requirements to be a qualify parent (usually single parent since they are subjected to stereotypes on getting welfare).

I'm against it.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -Salvor Hardin.

'nuff said. *nod*

SPOILER, DON'T READ THIS


Yeah, talk big shit from behind a Foundation force shield that renders you immune to my paltry weapons. Keep talking. One day, a Robot will show up and ruin the story.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Kids respond faster to a quick swat to the fanny than to silliness like time-outs, rational discussions for which they don't have the reasoning capacity, or any other modern concepts which have done little except produce generations of defiant brats. They remember it better also. I know I did.

Don't beat 'em bloody, don't leave marks, don't cause permanent damage, but don't omit a good old-fashioned walloping when the need arises.

Parents should definitely not call their children harsh names - they should show respect to them. And they definitely should keep the "you behaved bad I'm not happy" talks to private situations.

Edit: I saved to quickly, my point was: of course, physical violence is not the only wrong thing, and may not be the worse. But that worse things can exist doesn't mean it's justified.
Still, I do not agree with a blanket ban. True, many of the severe forms I know must be banned (ie. being hung upside-down, being placed in a sack, being tied to a post and left for half a day), but many much milder forms exist (tug on the ear, light slap on wrist) for those parents who would want to have it as an option.

But I agree, though, that it must be discouraged as much as possible, preferably through parent education, etc., until we eliminate this kind of thing. I just don't want to see parents jailed or children taken away just for some tug in the ear. It is probably more detrimental to the children and possibly the parents.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Spoiling is much more complex than that. You won't spoil a kid just because you show him respect, treat him like a human being, and don't use your physical strength to make him act by fear.

Kids respond faster to a quick swat

Respond in which way ? That is the question. Respond in fear, in coward attitude ("oh no I won't do that it'll hurt them", with no regard for if it's right or wrong to do it), in feeling of unfairness. Education *is* a slow process. The question is not about if the reaction is fast or not. It's much longer to build a trust relationship, to use reason, love, mutual respect and trust to have the kid obey to you - but it's much more deep, enlightened and powerful form of authority. One which will continue to work even if the kid knows he can't get catched. One which will make him grow as a human being, not go back to the state of a fearing animal. One which will make him free, not one which will give him a slave mentality "obey to stronger persons".

Still, I do not agree with a blanket ban. True, many of the severe forms I know must be banned (ie. being hung upside-down, being placed in a sack, being tied to a post and left for half a day), but many much milder forms exist (tug on the ear, light slap on wrist) for those parents who would want to have it as an option.

But I agree, though, that it must be discouraged as much as possible, preferably through parent education, etc., until we eliminate this kind of thing. I just don't want to see parents jailed or children taken away just for some tug in the ear. It is probably more detrimental to the children and possibly the parents.

I am fairly certain that it is very rare for a case worker to take someone's kid away for a tug in the ear without any other reasons. Truth is they don't even got enough foster home to house the most severe cases (stuff like chronic alcohol promoted beating, or some of your more extreme examples). Most of the jailing comes from parents actually killing the kid, and most of the kids taken away (outside of financial reasons) are due to case worker predicting a life threatening situation, where the child dying at home is a real possibility. At least here in the US that's how it works.

Coporal punishment.
Most of the statements here are stating that Coporal punishment is Abuse.
Abuse and Coporal punishment are not the same thing.

However, society getting involved where it need not be is a serious problem.
ex. A child who is loved and cared for is taken from his grandparents because someone feels they are too old.

ex.A pedophile is able to get away with molesting child after child because society has entirely screwed up it's own laws leaving the way clear for the evil and closed for the disinfranchished.

Where are all you people who disapprove of abuse when the abused is right in front of you? You're blind as a bat then, but lord help the woman who gives her brat a quick smack in public.

Summary: Back off until you have a real solution, with real data to support it and/or you figure out how to change the underlying tenets of Western Society.:upyours::rolleyes::upyours:

I just don't want to see parents jailed or children taken away just for some tug in the ear. It is probably more detrimental to the children and possibly the parents.

I never said parents should be send to jails for minor issues. Making it illegal, and doing government-paid campaigns against doesn't mean you'll send someone to jail as soon as he slightly breaks the law. It's a message, it's saying "children are human beings, they have rights, and like any other human being, it's not allowed to beat them". The penalty can be very low, and it doesn't mean much of efforts to enforce it.

But anyway, that applies on most laws, I don't tend to believe in harsh laws and punishments, I tend to believe in public education, very mild "punishments" and "second chances".

I am fairly certain that it is very rare for a case worker to take someone's kid away for a tug in the ear without any other reasons. Truth is they don't even got enough foster home to house severe life threatening situations (stuff like chronic alcohol promoted beating, or some of your more extreme examples). At least here in the US that's how it works.

Yeah... I remember one case where my mother and her workmates (teachers) signaled to the gov what they suspected to be a case of child abuse/incest... the answer was "we don't have enough people to check, so we won't give any follow up to this"... our gov prefers to use policemen to arrest "illegal" immigrants, small cannabis users and mp3 downloaders than to investigate suspected cases of child abuse in a poor suburb (who cares about them anyway ?) ... stupid right-wing gov.

But anyway, that applies on most laws, I don't tend to believe in harsh laws and punishments, I tend to believe in public education, very mild "punishments" and "second chances".

It's ideas like that which cause most of the crime in the Western world. I believe in mercy, but more importantly I believe in justice and logic. People are panicky, stupid animals who respond very well to force and rather poorly to mildness. Don't believe me? Go to google and type in something like group mentality or mob mind. Or go to an actual school and observe these little people... They're monsters. That's why we have Columbine and the like. Kids are as cruel and incline to poor behavior as any adult. Luckily a good parent will try to train that out of them be it with cane or hug.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child." - Christian Bible

Most of the statements here are stating that Coporal punishment is Abuse.
Abuse and Coporal punishment are not the same thing.

Corporal punishment is an abuse of superior physical strength to inflict on someone who is weaker. So yes, it's an abuse of strength and of authority.

However, society getting involved where it need not be is a serious problem.

Society is here to protect. It'll not be perfect (nothing is), but it can do a lot to make things better.

ex. A child who is loved and cared for is taken from his grandparents because someone feels they are too old.

I never heard of such a case.

ex.A pedophile is able to get away with molesting child after child because society has entirely screwed up it's own laws

If he gets away, it's because there is no proof of his guilt. What do you want, Ancien Régime like sending people to jail even if you're not sure they are guilty ?

Where are all you people who disapprove of abuse when the abused is right in front of you?

Which abuse are you speaking about ? I see a lot of abuse in front of me, in many different domains. But I struggle against them.

Yeah... I remember one case where my mother and her workmates (teachers) signaled to the gov what they suspected to be a case of child abuse/incest... the answer was "we don't have enough people to check, so we won't give any follow up to this"... our gov prefers to use policemen to arrest "illegal" immigrants, small cannabis users and mp3 downloaders than to investigate suspected cases of child abuse in a poor suburb (who cares about them anyway ?) ... stupid right-wing gov.

Yea it is really scary to me that most people feel we need to loosen child abuse laws. When in reality it's so underfunded that it is almost non existent to begin with.

That brings up another problem. There are cases of kids actually abused/dying in foster homes.

I never said parents should be send to jails for minor issues. Making it illegal, and doing government-paid campaigns against doesn't mean you'll send someone to jail as soon as he slightly breaks the law. It's a message, it's saying "children are human beings, they have rights, and like any other human being, it's not allowed to beat them". The penalty can be very low, and it doesn't mean much of efforts to enforce it.

But anyway, that applies on most laws, I don't tend to believe in harsh laws and punishments, I tend to believe in public education, very mild "punishments" and "second chances".
Yup. Education still the best.

SPOILER, DON'T READ THIS


Yeah, talk big shit from behind a Foundation force shield that renders you immune to my paltry weapons. Keep talking. One day, a Robot will show up and ruin the story.

:eek:

:(

Summary: Back off until you have a real solution, with real data to support it and/or you figure out how to change the underlying tenets of Western Society.:upyours::rolleyes::upyours:

Surely it is an underlying tenet of a "Western Society" to respect the rights of all humans, and to be honest I see no excuse for violence towards another regardless of age. And please tell me why some of the most vulnerable and weak of society are being hit by people bigger and stronger than they are when they could learn from discipline using non-violent methods rather than barbaric punishment?

Here's the data:
http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/corporal
http://www.bo.se/english/Adfinity.aspx?pageid=90

I am a fierce opponent of corporal punishment (smacking, whipping, caning etc). However, I know that many people still advocate smacking of children, and some will even support it in the judicial and educational systems too. So, I was just wondering, what do you think of corporal punishment? A necessary part of being a good parent, or a violation of rights?

smacking: no
whipping: Hell no
caning: OH HELL NO!
Etc.: depends

Corporal Punishment is like any other parenting tool. it can be abused to the point where it becomes dangerous.

Corporal Punishment should NEVER be used as a first, second, or third option and it should never be used extensively or alone.

It's ideas like that which cause most of the crime in the Western world.

Actually, it's the opposite. Crime rates are much higher in states with strong punishments than in the ones without. That's true both inside the USA and when comparing the USA with other western countries (Europe). The countries/states with very limited punishments (no death penalty, no life sentence, a lot of defense right, ...) have a much lower rate of crime.

People are panicky, stupid animals who respond very well to force and rather poorly to mildness.

That's the case in society and education systems which emphasizes on violence, punishment and fear rather than on logical, cooperation and working together.

That's why we have Columbine and the like.

Why are "Columbine and the like" much more frequent in the USA than in Europe or Canada ? Because you have widespread firearms (once again, stupid concept of legitimating violence), because you have a very harsh justice system, with very high punishments, and a very violent society built on "each for himself".

Kids are as cruel and incline to poor behavior as any adult. Luckily a good parent will try to train that out of them be it with cane or hug.

Doing it with cane or doing it with hug will change everything - in one case it justifies violence, in the other case it shows violence is not a solution.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child." - Christian Bible

Christian Bible... responsible of the Crusades (massive slaughter, plunder and rape campaigns), the Inquisition (massive usage of torture and unfair punishment), slaughter/genocide of the native americans. Definitely not the book in which to look for answers if you want to lower the violence level of a society. "Eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind", Gandhi.

Corporal punishment is an abuse of superior physical strength to inflict on someone who is weaker. So yes, it's an abuse of strength and of authority.



Society is here to protect. It'll not be perfect (nothing is), but it can do a lot to make things better.



I never heard of such a case.



If he gets away, it's because there is no proof of his guilt. What do you want, Ancien Régime like sending people to jail even if you're not sure they are guilty ?



Which abuse are you speaking about ? I see a lot of abuse in front of me, in many different domains. But I struggle against them.

1.)Coporal punishment is what is done when the child is defiant, much as chronic DUIs result in revoking of one's license or Any other instance when authority puts one in one's place for the good of the social group.

2.)Society does little to protect. I don't know where you're from, but in my city police officers have actually told raped women they imagined their assaults. That's not even adequent muchless semi-perfect.

3.)Look it up. It was on CNN a few months ago.

4.)How about bloody sheets, video tapes, and the testamony of several children? How about even after conviction he got out after two years for good behavior? How about he was back at it not a week later?

4.2) As for people going to jail without solid proof - it already happens. Welcome to the US of A chick!:rolleyes:

"Spare the rod, spoil the child." - Christian Bible
a common mis-conception. the Rod in the original Greek text is translated as shepards crok. the hooked staff that shepards use to guide and protect their flocks.

now I suggest those who think that the bible verse means to beat your child should go watch how shepard's use their rods on their sheep.

I doubt you will find any shepard beating their sheep with their staff.

a common mis-conception. the Rod in the original Greek text is translated as shepards crok. the hooked staff that shepards use to guide and protect their flocks.

JuNii, I think you're making a good point here, and in my previous incarnations on nationstates, you've always been a thoughtful, contemplative, civil poster.

As such, I will not make the obvious joke about what shepherds do to sheep with their croks.



now I suggest those who think that the bible verse means to beat your child should go watch how shepard's use their rods on their sheep.

See, this is a reasonable thread on an important subject, and you are contributing to it in a well informed way. It would be inappropriate and unfunny for me to make comment on shephards, rods, and sheep.


I doubt you will find any shepard beating their sheep with their staff.

.....okay....see, again, spamming this thread would be in poor taste...and besides, its an obvious joke, entirely lacking in any genuine wit...





Besides, there were no Welshmen in the Bible...

... in 1979, the Swedish government sent out a leaflet to every household detailing what effect the spanking ban would have and how to raise kids otherwise. Since 1979, the number of people in Sweden supporting corporal punishment has decreased dramatically.interesting.
... in 1979, the Swedish government sent out a leaflet to every household detailing what effect the spanking ban would have and how to raise kids otherwise. Since 1979, the number vandalism/theft-related crimes has decreased dramatically.is that right?

;)

1.)Coporal punishment is what is done when the child is defiant, much as chronic DUIs result in revoking of one's license or Any other instance when authority puts one in one's place for the good of the social group.

2.)Society does little to protect. I don't know where you're from, but in my city police officers have actually told raped women they imagined their assaults. That's not even adequent muchless semi-perfect.

3.)Look it up. It was on CNN a few months ago.

4.)How about bloody sheets, video tapes, and the testamony of several children? How about even after conviction he got out after two years for good behavior? How about he was back at it not a week later?

4.2) As for people going to jail without solid proof - it already happens. Welcome to the US of A chick!:rolleyes:

So you are saying that, because the government is so corrupted, that they should just turn their back from the people MORE and allow people to do anything to their kids?

We don't think it appropriate to inflict physical pain on murders and rapists, but misbehaving children, that's a whole other matter. :rolleyes:

interesting.
is that right?

"The Swedish Institute for Statistics has regularly investigated attitudes in the population towards corporal punishment. In 1965, 53% were positive towards corporal punishment of children, 1968-42%, 1971-35%, 1981-26% and 1994-11%. Hence, today in Sweden probably less than 10% are positive to the use of corporal punishment."

From the website of the Swedish Children's Ombudsman. :)

"The Swedish Institute for Statistics has regularly investigated attitudes in the population towards... Hi Auevia, My name is OcceanDrive. I am not easy.


welcome to NationStates and Merry Christmas :D

LOL...Merry Belated Christmas and Feliz A(insert n with tilde here)o Nuevo! :Dgracias :fluffle:

LOL...Merry Belated Christmas and Feliz A(insert n with tilde here)o Nuevo! :D

JuNii, I think you're making a good point here, and in my previous incarnations on nationstates, you've always been a thoughtful, contemplative, civil poster.

As such, I will not make the obvious joke about what shepherds do to sheep with their croks.




See, this is a reasonable thread on an important subject, and you are contributing to it in a well informed way. It would be inappropriate and unfunny for me to make comment on shephards, rods, and sheep.



.....okay....see, again, spamming this thread would be in poor taste...and besides, its an obvious joke, entirely lacking in any genuine wit...





Besides, there were no Welshmen in the Bible...

Thanks, but think of this. while typing that I had to avoid using the words "Shepard's Rod" and "Sheep" together.

Hence 'Crok" or however you spell it. :D

Thanks, but think of this. while typing that I had to avoid using the words "Shepard's Rod" and "Sheep" together.

Hence 'Crok" or however you spell it. :D

Crook, Shepherd's Crook.

Hey, worked on me. Ask, Ask, Tell, Smack.

I don't see my father to be a failure in parenting at all - he's one of the most supportive guys to anyone that I know, and is about all a father can be. The fact that he spanked me when I misbehaved, in my mind, makes no stain on his character.

when i said its a failure of parenting i dont mean that one spanking makes you a terrible parent. there are far worse thing than spanking your children on rare occasions.

but its not the best way to teach your child discipline and every time you end up doing it it means that you failed in some way. maybe you should have "nipped it in the bud" days ago, maybe you should have used different techniques starting YEARS ago. maybe you were having a bad day and should have walked away at that moment.

smacking: no
whipping: Hell no
caning: OH HELL NO!
Etc.: depends

Corporal Punishment is like any other parenting tool. it can be abused to the point where it becomes dangerous.

Corporal Punishment should NEVER be used as a first, second, or third option and it should never be used extensively or alone.

when my niece and nephew were small, their parents (my husbands brother and his wife) used spanking for EVERY discipline situation. they werent brutal but they would take the child into private every time they crossed whatever the line was and they would get a few swats on the behind.

they had to give it up before the younger one turned 5 because he would not respond to spanking any more. he would laugh and pretend that it didnt hurt at all. it kinda freaked them out that a child so young could end up so cheeky about spankings.

once they stopped, i think the children ended up better behaved. they certainly are pretty good adults now with no big problems in their lives.

when my niece and nephew were small, their parents (my husbands brother and his wife) used spanking for EVERY discipline situation. they werent brutal but they would take the child into private every time they crossed whatever the line was and they would get a few swats on the behind.

they had to give it up before the younger one turned 5 because he would not respond to spanking any more. he would laugh and pretend that it didnt hurt at all. it kinda freaked them out that a child so young could end up so cheeky about spankings.

once they stopped, i think the children ended up better behaved. they certainly are pretty good adults now with no big problems in their lives.
I would call that excessive use... but that's me.

Not much better than corporeal.

I would call that excessive use... but that's me.

Agreed. That's overkill. I wasn't spanked as a matter of course, I was spanked if I didn't stop after the first two warnings and an order.

I do have something to add about the Pavlov comment. That's the point of punishment, isn't it? The child wishes to avoid feeling bad as a result of doing something bad, thus they don't do it to avoid the punishment. It's the reason most of us don't rob banks - we don't want to be punished.

It's all Pavlovian, really.

Agreed. That's overkill. I wasn't spanked as a matter of course, I was spanked if I didn't stop after the first two warnings and an order.

I do have something to add about the Pavlov comment. That's the point of punishment, isn't it? The child wishes to avoid feeling bad as a result of doing something bad, thus they don't do it to avoid the punishment. It's the reason most of us don't rob banks - we don't want to be punished.

It's all Pavlovian, really.

Laws are based on societies values, so a person doesn't rob a bank because it is contrary to the society he is living under, not because of the law.

I would call that excessive use... but that's me.

oh it was completely excessive.

i was impressed that when it wasnt working that instead of upping the violence--using a belt perhaps--they discarded a failed strategy and moved to a better one.

oh it was completely excessive.

i was impressed that when it wasnt working that instead of upping the violence--using a belt perhaps--they discarded a failed strategy and moved to a better one.

Using a belt would not be spanking but whipping.

Using a belt would not be spanking but whipping.

You don't whip with a belt, you do a sort of well...belt.

Click Stand;13334745']You don't whip with a belt, you do a sort of well...belt.

belt, I veiw, is like a punch.

perhaps... lash?

Click Stand;13334721']Laws are based on societies values, so a person doesn't rob a bank because it is contrary to the society he is living under, not because of the law.

But if it wasn't illegal, you'd no doubt see many more examples of people entering banks and walking off with money, regardless if it was contrary to society.

belt, I veiw, is like a punch.

perhaps... lash?

This is harder than I thought. How about a smack. What technique are we using in said belting?

But if it wasn't illegal, you'd no doubt see many more examples of people entering banks and walking off with money, regardless if it was contrary to society.

Sure but I wouldn't say that the primary reason people don't rob banks is because of punishment. I guess it would be percentage split between those who do it because of pressure from society or threat of jail time.

The same could be said for hitting your kid or using other methods. Each kid has different reasons for not doing something that is deemed wrong.

Actually, it's the opposite. Crime rates are much higher in states with strong punishments than in the ones without. That's true both inside the USA and when comparing the USA with other western countries (Europe). The countries/states with very limited punishments (no death penalty, no life sentence, a lot of defense right, ...) have a much lower rate of crime.

*cough Singapore *cough - they have heavy punishments and virtually no crime; it is so safe there that a female can walk in the streets alone at 2 in the morning.

"Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child" - God; end of discussion

In my personal opinion, corporal punishment should be utilised by both schools and parents as part of a range of punishments. In New Zealand, in 1990, we made corporal punishment illegal. Back then, relations between teachers and students were generally harmonious. Now, we have a situation where students are able to severely threaten and even beat teachers (the PPTA have been very concerned about it), and they cannot do anything effective - so what if you get a detention, it is a weak piddly punishment. At least six of the best hurt and it would stick in the students memory. Same with in the home really.

Let us face it, pain is a very good teacher. If you touch a warm stove, you are highly unlikely to touch it again, why? Because it hurt to high heaven. Same with corporal punishment, you are unlikely to do it again because it hurt.

By the way, for all these arguments about Pavlov's dogs and all that nonsense, bear in mind that children do not get full reasoning until their early 20s, and thus when they are at a young age, a "reasoned discussion" will not work.

Finally, corporal punishment worked quite well for six thousand years, I have seen no problem with it (abuse is totally different of course), and I believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Click Stand;13334763']This is harder than I thought. How about a smack. What technique are we using in said belting?

I would say... one or both ends of the belt held in the hand and the other end/loop strikes the child.

to me, it won't make a difference if the buckle is used. either way is wrong.

I think it might work in moderation, but I wouldn't really do it to my own kids. I'd knock em out if they came home drunk or high, but that's that.

I am a fierce opponent of corporal punishment (smacking, whipping, caning etc). However, I know that many people still advocate smacking of children, and some will even support it in the judicial and educational systems too. So, I was just wondering, what do you think of corporal punishment? A necessary part of being a good parent, or a violation of rights?

Corporal Punishment sounds like the pseudonym of some army officer turned sadomasochist porn star.

I do not know how much objective fact there is on this topic, but I -do- like what Auevia said.

Hugs to Sweden :fluffle: (im not from there)

For the record I am for corporal punishment in the military, and for being found guilty of (certain) crimes.

Against the idea when it comes to children under the age of sufferage.

The book "Starship Troopers" makes a better arguement then I could ever do.

-Rafe

When Sweden banned corporal punishment altogether in 1979, the Swedish government sent out a leaflet to every household detailing what effect the spanking ban would have and how to raise kids otherwise. Since 1979, the number of people in Sweden supporting corporal punishment has decreased dramatically.

Maybe, one day, everybody will know...:)

Spanking should be used only when all other methods fail. Then it should be used with restraint. Most kids respond well to things like time outs and being deprived of treats, provided they're applied consistently. But there are some (very few) kids that are impervious to anything but corporal punishment: some don't even respond to that.

QFT. Other, less painful methods should be tried first, but if all else fails, then yeah, go ahead and spank them. But don't do it in anger or lose your temper while you do it.

spanking is a failure of parenting.

its not the worst thing you can do (given all the reasonable givens) but its never necessary and indicates that you let the situation get out of hand before acting on it.

or that you dont have a clue about better discipline techiniques.

No, spanking is NOT per se a failure of parenting.

And NEVER necessary? I disagree.

I will grant you that in some cases, discipline techniques that are less physically painful to the child may be more effective, and therefore should be tried before resorting to corporal punishment.

But some kids just don't understand anything but the belt/cane/"switch"/ruler/2x4/whatever, and in their cases, so far from being a "failure of parenting", corporal punishment is an absolute necessity.

And it does NOT automatically mean that you let the situation get out of hand before acting on it; sometimes it means that you DID act on it using less drastic forms of discipline, and those methods FAILED.

*cough Singapore *cough - they have heavy punishments and virtually no crime; it is so safe there that a female can walk in the streets alone at 2 in the morning.

"Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child" - God; end of discussion

In my personal opinion, corporal punishment should be utilised by both schools and parents as part of a range of punishments. In New Zealand, in 1990, we made corporal punishment illegal. Back then, relations between teachers and students were generally harmonious. Now, we have a situation where students are able to severely threaten and even beat teachers (the PPTA have been very concerned about it), and they cannot do anything effective - so what if you get a detention, it is a weak piddly punishment. At least six of the best hurt and it would stick in the students memory. Same with in the home really.

Let us face it, pain is a very good teacher. If you touch a warm stove, you are highly unlikely to touch it again, why? Because it hurt to high heaven. Same with corporal punishment, you are unlikely to do it again because it hurt.

By the way, for all these arguments about Pavlov's dogs and all that nonsense, bear in mind that children do not get full reasoning until their early 20s, and thus when they are at a young age, a "reasoned discussion" will not work.

Finally, corporal punishment worked quite well for six thousand years, I have seen no problem with it (abuse is totally different of course), and I believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

QFT.

I do have something to add about the Pavlov comment. That's the point of punishment, isn't it?

Partly, and that's why I dislike punishments in general. But not only.

The child wishes to avoid feeling bad as a result of doing something bad, thus they don't do it to avoid the punishment.

Feeling bad for what ? If it's feeling bad from physical pain inflicted by someone, then you failed, because as soon as no one is watching, the child will do it again. If it's feeling bed because he has remorse of doing something bad, that's a completely different issue. And that's, partly, what education should do: teach "ethic", "morality". When you need to punish, it's a failure, even more when you use physical pain as a punishment.

But of course, no parent can be perfect, and sometimes, you do fail. And you have to resort to punishment, to make it clear that he did something wrong. But once again, you can just use a punishment for the pain/fear effect, or you can use a smarter form of punishment. Putting the child alone in his room for a while is a form of punishment, but with the "added value" of making the child think about it. It's not just physical pain. It's making him think about why he got punished. And it'll work all the best if after you come and speak with him about the reasons. The key of education is *understanding*. Not fear.

And the same applies to other kind of punishment. A very good form of punishment is one that makes the person undo/fix the wrong he did. It's much more efficient to make a drunk driver help for awhile in an emergency hospital helping treating people who had accidents than to put him in jail.

It's the reason most of us don't rob banks - we don't want to be punished.

It may be the reason you don't do it. It's not the reason I don't do it. And that's one of the very wrong aspect of education by fear. You will not rob just because you fear punishment - so you'll rob if you're pretty sure you won't get caught, or you will do another action, as bad, but legal (like exposing your workers to toxic product without protection, which sometimes can be legal, or whatever). And you'll respect the law, by fear of punishment, even if the law is inhuman and tells you to give your jew neighbour to the gestapo. Dictatorships can only exist because people are educated to fear punishments, and to blindly respect authority enforced by strength, and not to use their mind, to reject any unfairness and to struggle against abuse of authority.

But if it wasn't illegal, you'd no doubt see many more examples of people entering banks and walking off with money, regardless if it was contrary to society.

To a point, yes. But mostly because the values of society are quite broken. Our capitalist societies emphasis into earning money (without much caring if it's in inventing something useful or just of abusing of child labour in third world country), into competing against each other. The values of our society tell us, to a point, that "taking money", as long as it's legal, is a good thing, without thinking much about effects on others.

Click Stand;13334767']The same could be said for hitting your kid or using other methods. Each kid has different reasons for not doing something that is deemed wrong.

And some reasons are much more useful and positive than others. Because if he doesn't do it for fear of punishment, then he'll do it as soon as he feels safe. And he'll be easily made to do "wrong" things by fear of punishment, in other situations.

And another important point is that *any* usage of physical violence undermines the legitimate authority built, slowly, years after years, on trust, mutual respect, and genuine care. So you can't have both - or at least, not totally.

*cough Singapore *cough - they have heavy punishments and virtually no crime; it is so safe there that a female can walk in the streets alone at 2 in the morning.

Singapore is a very special case, and every rule has its exceptions. But overall, if you compare comparable countries (like western countries between themselves) you can see that strongest punishments lead to more crime. In Iceland, a country with one of the lowest punishments and police forces of the world, there just aren't locks on most doors (and people very rarely lock their car).

"Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child" - God; end of discussion

Oh, God spoke to you ? Please, be serious. The bible was written by *men*, not by any god, and doesn't contain any absolute truth (the earth is flat ? the sun revolves around the earth ? the world was created in 7 days ?).

In my personal opinion, corporal punishment should be utilised by both schools and parents as part of a range of punishments. In New Zealand, in 1990, we made corporal punishment illegal. Back then, relations between teachers and students were generally harmonious.

Corporal punishments are completely banned in french schools since at least 1968, and relations between teachers and students there were generally harmonious until the mid-90s... that is when the unsettling effects of neoliberal globalizations (raise of misery, breaking of the social tissue, massive shrinking of education spendings, ...) became widespread. The same goes in NZ: the neoliberal globalized capitalism *is* violent, and creates violence in every part of the society. Adding violence to it would just make things worse.

Let us face it, pain is a very good teacher. If you touch a warm stove, you are highly unlikely to touch it again, why? Because it hurt to high heaven. Same with corporal punishment, you are unlikely to do it again because it hurt.

Pain doesn't teach. Teaching means understanding, means accepting that you were wrong. Pain makes people afraid, it creates pavlovian reflexes. The exact opposite of what education is. An educated person is one that makes a decision using his reason and his ethics, and when he decided that he should a way, he does it *even* if it means physical pain. Not one living in fear of pain and reacting like an animal.

By the way, for all these arguments about Pavlov's dogs and all that nonsense, bear in mind that children do not get full reasoning until their early 20s, and thus when they are at a young age, a "reasoned discussion" will not work.

A child, even as young age, is perfectly open to reason, if you use the correct arguments. And it's only by considering him to be a reasonable being that he can develop his reason.

Finally, corporal punishment worked quite well for six thousand years, I have seen no problem with it (abuse is totally different of course), and I believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It worked so well than we have a lovely world, with no violence in it, no crime, no wars, no misery, no abuse, no theft ? The world *is* broken ! We live into a world constantly ravaged by wars, by violence. We live in a jungle where some people, to win a few more millions, decide to break lives of thousands, to plunder whole countries. We live into a world where violence is at every corner. It definitely failed. We are spending more resources into making wars, building weapons than into curing people ! We are spending into brainwashing advertising than into feeding people !

No, spanking is NOT per se a failure of parenting.

More exactly, when you have to resort to it, it means that *before* you failed something. And since I don't like making others pay for my mistakes, I'll not do it. (That's one reason among others).

But some kids just don't understand anything but the belt/cane/"switch"/ruler/2x4/whatever, and in their cases, so far from being a "failure of parenting", corporal punishment is an absolute necessity.

But why doesn't it understand something else ? That's where the failure of the parent is. If his kid doesn't understand anything else, it means that he already screwed a lot. And then, physical punishment may seem to be a short-term solution.

But on the long-term, it just makes things worse. The more you use physical pain on your child, the less he'll be able and likely to respond to other forms of education. The more you do it, the more you break the trust he could have in you, the more you make him feel a victim of unfairness. So on the long term, you just feed the infernal loop.

It takes more time to build trust than fear. But that doesn't mean it's not worth it. And you can't have both.

And it does NOT automatically mean that you let the situation get out of hand before acting on it; sometimes it means that you DID act on it using less drastic forms of discipline, and those methods FAILED.

So it means that YOU failed using other methods. And because YOU failed, your child has to suffer ?

So it means that YOU failed using other methods. And because YOU failed, your child has to suffer ?

Personally, I believe it is wrong to condemn all parents who use corporal punishment as "failures". This is because, in my opinion, there are a lot of people who don't know how to control their anger, or don't know how to discipline their child - so resort to punishment. These people are misguided, not parental failures. And when their child grows up, they might feel like failures if he/she turns out wrong, so education in other forms of discipline is essential for the sake of both parties. I personally also believe this category includes those that use religion as a guidance, because, as we so kindly heard earlier, "spare the rod, spoil the child" is a message of guidance, not flogging. :D

However, parents who know other methods but would rather barbarically hit their children than use a more peaceful method, I believe, need to reconsider what they're doing seriously.

tbh I am very much for corporal punishment in schools in particular. At homes I dont really have an opinion, but I would always favour sensible parenting over just beating your kid senseless if he didn't behave.

IMO I don't think corporal punishment scars a child for life or anything, its unpleasant but then its supposed to be unpleasant!

Personally, I believe it is wrong to condemn all parents who use corporal punishment as "failures".

Well, we should be careful in not confusing two different things. There is the overall, global, judgement of "he is a failure". And there is the local, specific judgement of saying "in this case, he failed". I was referring to the second one. When a parent "has" to resort to physical pain as a punishment, it means that in a way or another, in this particular case, he failed something. It doesn't mean that overall he's a "failure" as a parent. Everyone fails sometimes, we are not perfect, saying that in a specific act in a specific situation someone failed is not saying that he is a failure.

This is because, in my opinion, there are a lot of people who don't know how to control their anger, or don't know how to discipline their child - so resort to punishment. These people are misguided, not parental failures.

Indeed. In this case, they failed to control their anger for example. That's a failure. But that doesn't mean that overall, as parents or as human beings, thy are failures. Everyone sometimes loss his temper and fails to control his anger, some more often, but that can happen to anyone. Saying that in this case the parent failed doesn't mean that you judge him as a failure on a global level.

I personally also believe this category includes those that use religion as a guidance, because, as we so kindly heard earlier, "spare the rod, spoil the child" is a message of guidance, not flogging. :D

hehe :) I don't have anything against people using religion as a guidance, but as you may have noticed, I tend to get irritated by people using religion as an absolute rule ("it's written in the bible, so it's true, end of the discussion"), in a dogmatic way (and without, of course, ever wondering about how they interpret it).

I'm all for corperal punishment! If a corperal misbehaves he deserves to be punished, end of story!



Now to be serious... yes, to a certain degree I support it. SOmetimes sending little Timmy to the time out corner doesn't get the message across.

I'm kinda in two minds about it. One is from an idealists point of view, that it is reprehensible and should be abolished. The other is more realist/evolutionarily based. The fact is almost all human cultures have used physical punishment on children throughout 99% of history and prehistory. It seems we're biologically set for physical punishment to be a necessary part of our development. Now that doesn't necessarily mean we can't get rid of it. There's lots of things that we evolved to do that most of us don't do anymore. But it does make me wonder. What if it turns out that we can't make functioning human beings without physically punishing them as children; that our brains just aren't sophisticated enough to accept non-physical alternatives in the same way? What if, in our naïve attempts to help children, we actually create a new, inferior and maldeveloped class of human with this bold never-before-tried experiment? Believe me, if it is possible to remove this repugnant part of the human experience, then I'm all for it. I just don't think we should rush into it without understanding the possible consequences thoroughly.

What if it turns out that we can't make functioning human beings without physically punishing them as children; that our brains just aren't sophisticated enough to accept non-physical alternatives in the same way?

Well, there are parents who never used physical pain as punishment in raising their children, and every evidence shows that those children are not in any way worse than the others. So, yes, we can get rid of it. My parents never used physical pain as punishment against neither me nor my siblings, and we all went out very well, and that's just one example among many. If you look at the posts about Sweden, they banned physical violence against children, the ban was widely accepted in families, and didn't lead to any bad result - Sweden is one of the countries with a very low crime rate, for example.

What if, in our naïve attempts to help children, we actually create a new, inferior and maldeveloped class of human with this bold never-before-tried experiment? Believe me, if it is possible to remove this repugnant part of the human experience, then I'm all for it. I just don't think we should rush into it without understanding the possible consequences thoroughly.

Several countries have already banned corporal punishment, and to be honest it seems to have worked well. I don't believe that it's a part of human existence, but something that is primitive and that we should be helping evolution get rid of. The human race can grow out of hitting each other, as far-fetched as it may seem. :)

When a parent "has" to resort to physical pain as a punishment, it means that in a way or another, in this particular case, he failed something. It doesn't mean that overall he's a "failure" as a parent. Everyone fails sometimes, we are not perfect, saying that in a specific act in a specific situation someone failed is not saying that he is a failure.

If a parent says that he "has" to use physical punishment, it's not just because everything he tried before has failed. It's because everything he tried before was ineffective. The parent needs to learn how to properly attack the problem of correct discipline so he won't attack his children. :D
Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean he's failed. He's done the right thing, it just didn't go that well. Doing the right thing for children isn't failing, whether it works or not.

If a parent says that he "has" to use physical punishment, it's not just because everything he tried before has failed. It's because everything he tried before was ineffective.

That's what I call a failure. If a customer asks me to finish a program for the end of January, and I can't meet the deadline, I failed him (I work in a free software service provider company). Maybe I had absolutely no way to succeed, very likely I did a few mistakes (everyone do) that leaded to me failing him. It doesn't mean I'm a bad programmer (I don't think I am), but I did fail in this case.

The same goes for parents and children. If the parent "has" to use physical punishment, it's because he failed to use other methods, and nearly all the time, it's because he did one or more "mistakes" before. That's what I mean with "failure".

The parent needs to learn how to properly attack the problem of correct discipline so he won't attack his children. :D

Exactly :) That's what I mean by "failing". I do believe that there are perfectly possible ways to raise a child without ever hurting him. And I'm a living example of it ;) So, if the parent has to resort to hurting him, either he could have used another method (which he may not know about, I don't blame him as a person, I blame his act, that's different), or he could have, before, by building another relationship with the child, by making the child more open to reason and less to fear, by warning the kid, by whatever, prevented the situation to occur.

Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean he's failed. He's done the right thing, it just didn't go that well. Doing the right thing for children isn't failing, whether it works or not.

Well, if it didn't work, then it was not the right thing to do. It may have seemed the best thing to do when he did it, and he may sincerely have done his best, but if it didn't work, that what I call "it failed", then it was not the thing to do.

If you feel you have to hit a child to make it behave then you are simply a lazy parent and an abuser. Just because you were abused as a child and turned out alright does not make it right. Plenty of children are abused and turn out ok.

spanking is a failure of parenting.

its not the worst thing you can do (given all the reasonable givens) but its never necessary and indicates that you let the situation get out of hand before acting on it.

or that you dont have a clue about better discipline techiniques.

^this.

If hitting an adult is not okay, hitting a child is double not okay.

You either think violence is an acceptable means to get what you want, or it's not. Pick.

^this.

If hitting an adult is not okay, hitting a child is double not okay.

You either think violence is an acceptable means to get what you want, or it's not. Pick.

Most people who spank their kids would never think of doing the same to an adult because they are cowards and would get their asses kicked if they did. So they beat up on children because they know they can et away with it,.

It would be interesting to know the average age of the people who are for and against corporal punishment.

Just want to know if there's some sort of correlation.

And some reasons are much more useful and positive than others. Because if he doesn't do it for fear of punishment, then he'll do it as soon as he feels safe. And he'll be easily made to do "wrong" things by fear of punishment, in other situations.

And another important point is that *any* usage of physical violence undermines the legitimate authority built, slowly, years after years, on trust, mutual respect, and genuine care. So you can't have both - or at least, not totally.

My point was that some children WILL not respond to certain types of parenting. I still think that genuine care is going to be the best method, but in some cases it will fail. There should not be some standard for parenting because each kid is different. However care should be tried first before resorting to other means.