Is physical punishment justifiable?

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings

This is a hypothetical situation, but I am sure it is the likes of which that tends to occur quite often and of course, results vary from person to person depending on the situation. However in this case, the situation is as follows: Say a younger member of your family is involved in a particular habit that is perhaps damaging to the family, house, annoying, or whatever the reason, and you are trying to get the family member to stop that action, but to no avail. Logic doesn't help, as the younger family member persists on doing said action and the fact that it annoys you just spurs him or her on. The action can be anything such as not turning off faucet water or not closing the door when entering or exiting. You try to speak rationally to the sibling, but that doesn't work. I am greatly against any forms of physical punishment, but such a scenario makes me doubt my beliefs to some extent. Is physical punishment therefore moral? A punishment as such would establish proper respect and obedience, and will support proper habits that would help the younger family member in the future. However, as is known, physical punishment can also harbor more negative consequences as well.

What are your opinions?

[Bob]

Beat them because they left the water running?  No.  I wouldn't want to live there.

Kids aren't rational.  That's part of what makes them kids.

If you wanted to manipulate behavior, I'd go for positive reinforcement.  When they door shut the door, or do something closer to it, reward them.

[debussy symbolism]

Beat them because they left the water running?  No.  I wouldn't want to live there.

Kids aren't rational.  That's part of what makes them kids.

If you wanted to manipulate behavior, I'd go for positive reinforcement.  When they door shut the door, or do something closer to it, reward them.

You are completely right, kids aren't rational. However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to understand the concept. I am also not talking about kids but rather preteens and early teens. Again, this situation is hypothetical. A reward system is faulty in my opinion because the child will then use it to his or her advantage. Giving a reward for something will not make it into a habit. After a while you will get the child wanting a greater reward and a reluctance of obedience. Such things, especially for young teenagers shouldn't be too problematic. They need to understand that leaving the water on is expensive, and leaving the door open is prone to burglary. A reward will not teach anything, and for that matter, so won't punishment. However, punishement (not necessarily physical) will maek it into a habit. I am just talking about ideas that will stimulate positive behavior with minimal damage.

[Bob]

I heard the rewards are supposed to be inconsistent.  Otherwise they will expect them.

I still doubt beating them is the way to go. 

Maybe charge for the water they waste.  Or have fun and "steal" their stuff when they leave the door open.  "Oh my! Look at that.  Someone got in the house and stole your Britanny Spears music.  What a shame!  But how could they have gotten in?  The door was locked.... right?" 

They might be doing it on purpose, or ignoring request on purpose.  A teen thing, to assert their independence.

The positive side could still work.  Maybe even explaining why it's a problem -- "Hey, that's money going down the drain instead of ice cream there."

If they're a teen and you hit them, they could hit back.  Not good.

If all fails and they're just a jerk, stop being around them.  Don't invite them over.  Don't go anywhere with them.  Don't help them.

[debussy symbolism]

Thank you Bob for being so undestanding. I however must clear up some things to avoid further confusion.

Inconsistent rewards is not going to work. If the "treaty" must be even somewhat lasting, the following equation must hold true: consistent reward=consistent obidience.

The thing about charging them for the water is that they are family members. Any form of "revenge" will be instantly picked up by such a teen and that will start off a chain reaction that will only result in you losing complete control of your chilld (this happens more so with daughters and subsequently, I have a sister that acts out to an extent some of the details I mentioned above).

No, in this case it is not about independence. It is about not caring for other people's needs. That is why I mentioned physical punishment, because logic and persuasion doesn't work in this type of scenario. Either the child must be taught moral ethics from early on, or some other measures have to be taken in their teen years.

[Bob]

lol... I suppose there's another answer.  You lose.  You can't do anything about the situation to change it.  In that case, the only thing is what you can control and what your options are.

I'm guessing your an older sibling in this case?  Either that or parent?  But I'm really doubting parent though.

If this is a younger sibling, you're probably stuck.  That's how it is.  Besides that, your parents should take care of bigger problems but if someone's leaving water running and doors open, they should know.

In that case, you have to put up with it for a few years and then you move out. 

You could always put a lock on your door.  That keeps the siblings out and will put a little more protection over your stuff if the door's open.


The reward thing.  I've heard that several times in psych classes or sessions.  If the reward is always present, the subject won't respond unless they get the reward.  You want the reward to be temporary and the behavior to last.  So if the subject isn't always sure they will get a reward, it's more likely to stick.  That's what I've heard.  And that's what I've seen with students -- They start asking if they will get the reward, and what is it, and then they want something else and something more.

Siblings don't understand each other.  I think that's one of the laws of the universe.  Logic won't matter.  Actually, a lot of what you say probably won't matter.  Sincerity is good, but after that I would probably give up. 

Physical force isn't going to work.  Manipulating behavior might and could be fun.  I would just protect my stuff and stay out of the way.

Tell your parents of course.  See if they can do anything.  You could also "tweak" the results of things that are annoying -- stop the sink up a little so it overflows if someone leaves it running, ask your parents why the door is open if the AC is on, etc.

[elspeth]

There is always the 'bribery' approach. 'We only have so much money to spend on you every month. So if you leave the tap running you've used some of your budget, so you can't have that CD you want', or 'we'll have to take a proportion of the water bill out of your pocket money this month.' If you have a teenager who persists in spite of rational arguments, they will get worse for physical punishment. They do tend to understand taking privileges or money away though, because it soon adds up and starts to show them up in front of their friends which is something that most teenagers hate - social embarrassment.

Possibly turn it into a positive thing, sort of - teach them to manage their money with it, which is a really useful life skill which a lot of people don't get taught. You can soon teach them to do their accounts but pinning their pocket money account sheet on the fridge door. Every month they start with a certain amount of money they will get next month. Then through the month things get knocked off (eg for leaving the water running so they have a water bill to pay, leaving the door open so they have a heating bill or insurance premium to pay - I would add anything they spend over and above their basic needs) or added on (wages for doing chores, maybe?) then at the end of the month you add it up and that's their next month's pocket money. And if they end up in debt, if they don't have the money to pay the parent back the debt, it gets carried over to the following month and this month they get no money at all. Teach them basic accounting as well as having a try at getting them to behave.

Whatever happens, it has to come from the parents, not from siblings.

[prometheus]

Is physical punishment therefore moral? A punishment as such would establish proper respect and obedience,

You already try to answer your own question. Now I stronly disagree with the idea that physical punishment, or any punishment, establishes proper respect. Now, obedience may be 'established' but still punishing may do more good than bad. Especially physical punishment.

[zheer]

 Now I stronly disagree with the idea that physical punishment, or any punishment, establishes proper respect.

  True, punishment creats fear (young or old).

[prometheus]

You don't want to know how many people beat their children just because their parents also did and they think it is proper in the raising of children.



It is actually damaging, learns the children that violence is ok, etc.

[counterpoint]

It is actually damaging, learns the children that violence is ok, etc.

Absolutely true!

[thalbergmad]

  True, punishment creats fear (young or old).

Which can be a good thing.

The weak kneed government that runs England have outlawed the slapping of children and the schools are no longer allowed to use any form of physical punishment.

I wonder if this is the reason behind a teeange crime wave and why some state schools are turning out ill disciplined scum.

Physical punishment can be a useful short sharp shock treatment and give a quick but painful reminder what is right and what is wrong.

I think it is entirely justifiable. When i was caned at school for swearing, i made sure i did not do it again.

Thal

[prometheus]

Isn't shock therapy used against some mental illnesses?


Anyway, fear may be good for the leader. If they hate you but fear you enough, Machiavellian bla bla.


Yeah, then Saddam Hussain was a good guy.

[prometheus]

Thalbergmad, the reason physical punishment is outlawed is because it has no pedagogical effect. Well, it has effects, but only negative ones.


Physical punishment against children make societies more violent. It also destroys the trust band between parents and children. Children will be shy, insecure or violent. Adults who have been abused by their parents have a higher risk of being alcoholic, getting anxiety disorder, and have problems solving problems(haha).

Spanking also leads the way to serious abuse.



So it has no positive effects at all and quite some serious negative effects.

If you don't want to protect children against this then you fail at being a government. The mayor thing you can achieve is to protect the weak.

Children can't protect themselves against adults that use violence against them. There is no justice for these children if the government doesn't protect them.


People that spank (their) children should be punished in some way.



Weak kneed? They just listen very well to the really knowledgeable people in that field. If they didn't have these 'weak knees' they would be primitive and ignorant.

[thalbergmad]

Thalbergmad, the reason physical punishment is outlawed is because it has no pedagogical effect. Well, it has effects, but only negative ones.

I do not agree, it is an excellent way to immediately indicate that a particular action is not acceptable. I am not referring to violence, but fail to see the damage done by a light smack to the arse.

Take the example of the teenage brat who thought it was funny to try and steal my milk bottles in front of his mates. I could have spent 10 years analizing why he did it, investigate his upbringing, interview his teachers and during this time he might consider that theft is acceptable and will go unpunished. Instead, i gave him a quick hiding and sent him on his way. He definately won't be stealing my milk any more and his mates don't think he is funny. Problem solved.

Schoolchildren know that they cannot be punished and use this to do what they want without fear of retribution. If you like, i can put you in touch with many teachers who have left teaching because they can no longer control the classes and live in fear of violence.

Spare the rod and spoil the child. It is a necessary evil.

It is thanks to "trendy" teaching and lack of corporal punishment, that our streets are littered with "hoodies" and other illiterate teenage scum that know they will not be punished.

Thal

[prometheus]

I do not agree, it is an excellent way to immediately indicate that a particular action is not acceptable. I am not referring to violence, but fail to see the damage done by a light smack to the arse.

There are other ways to do that. If you resort to violence then that just shows you have no other way to show them they did something wrong.

You may not see how it is damaging. But there's tons of evidence that it is indeed damaging. So what you see or not is irrelevant.

He definately won't be stealing my milk any more and his mates don't think he is funny. Problem solved.

For you maybe. But the question was if it is good for the victim. That's the issue. Parents and teachers need to do something for the child.

Schoolchildren know that they cannot be punished and use this to do what they want without fear of retribution.

How can a teacher teach anything if all the students fear him? I don't see why they need to fear him. Should children also fear their parents?
What you bring up as something positive is clearly a negative aspect.

Often the problem of a teacher is that the children just can't be handled because the parents failed their obligation to the child. Violence doesn't increase this.

If you like, i can put you in touch with many teachers who have left teaching because they can no longer control the classes and live in fear of violence.

I don't see how beating up children helps this.


And if children don't get spanked by parents or teachers, why should teachers fear violence? These children have never been taught about violence.

Actually, the problem with this is that these children are beaten up by their parents who just utterly fail at their duty to the child because they lack dedication or something.

Spare the rod and spoil the child. It is a necessary evil.

I don't see how not using physical punishment is spoiling a child.

[pianistimo]

i have to commend thal on this one!  look back 45-50 years ago when it wasn't illegal for teachers to swat the hands of students and parents to swat their children's 'arse.'  of course, there are child abusers - but most parents are not looking to have their children go to the police.

nowdays it is basically illegal.  so this is a moot point.  however, most parents (such as myself) that are older grew up with some kind of memory of 'the great spanking'  and prefer to use their wits instead.  perhaps it is why we still honor our parents, wouldn never think of swearing around or at them, wouldn't slam the door, would hold in our thoughts, and generally give precedence to our elders.  do you see this today with all the nicey nicey?  it doesn't work. 

several students attacked a teacher in philadelphia and broke his neck (pushing him down a flight of stairs) over him requesting politely an i-pod.  this student obviously did not learn respect and was habituated to getting his way.  all children get habituated to whatever they are allowed to do.

as i see it - between the ages of 1-3 is a good start.  you can say 'no' and then if they don't listen - put them in time-out.  they won't repeat it more that 14-15 times if they are stubborn and then after that - gradually they get the idea.  also, punishments that fit the 'crime.'  i feel that children sense 'undue' punishment.  the bible says - if you steal something - to return it.  not to just say 'it's bad to steal' and keep the item.  you have to show them that returning it is important.  (spare change from mom/dad's wallet/purse is the same).  at this age, too - even a look of disappointment can be a motivator to do better.  it takes a lot of patience and time.

i think spending time with children makes them want to listen to you.  i've noticed that when i'm busy - my youngest will 'act up' to get attention.  but, if we spend half the day together - she's right beside me very happy and attentive.  it's not like discipline is always the negative kind.  you can positively discipline by just giving children attention that they want - and teach them things positively.

[thalbergmad]

It is very difficult to answer your post as you seem to have encompassed mine within yours.

Children do not need to fear their teachers, but they do need to respect them. Lack of any form of punishment does not assist. A quick "slippering" can introduce some respect.

I don't know what things are like in your Country, but in England juvenile delinquency is at an all time high. More and more State Schools are turning out illiterate thugs with no intention of working for a living or being a law abiding citizen. Private school where corporal punishment still takes place is a completely different matter. Their results are far superior.

You seem to link mild smacking as violence. This is absurd.

Thal

**This post was in answer to Prometheus and not pianistimo**

[thalbergmad]

perhaps it is why we still honor our parents, wouldn never think of swearing around or at them, wouldn't slam the door, would hold in our thoughts, and generally give precedence to our elders.  do you see this today with all the nicey nicey?  it doesn't work. 

Indeed, the nicey nicey does not always work.

Everyone was brought up differently, so i guess their opinions are going to vary a great deal. I can remember getting spankings from my dad and if i got a spanking at school, i would get another one when i got home. Do i hate my parents and my old teachers? Of course not.

Yes, some parents might abuse children and some teachers might have gone too far in the past, but making spanking illegal is a big mistake and is not goint to stop abuse. What it will stop is mild phyiscal correction which can solve a problem before it becomes a bigger one.

To equate this with violence is beyond absurdity.

Thal

[pianistimo]

do you ever wonder if it is a result of being brought up by babysitters.  i think that boredom causes a lot of social problems.  children were meant to be right beside their parents working at whatever their parents are doing, imo.  to be learning each day.  when their minds are left to themselves - they just get into trouble.  so, they have to have something constructive to learn and do.  if you have a babysitter - it's not a problem - it's just that you have to instruct the babysitter on what you expect to be accomplished each day with the child.  reading, playing, focused time. 

thal, are you serious?  two spankings?  one at school and then one at home.  wow.  you were a brute for punishment.  after 'the great spanking' i got - i ran away for a day.  i plotted it in the bathroom at school with my best friend who had some grudges against her parents - but we got tired about 5:00 pm and by then the police were looking for us.  she never got spankings - so when she was found - her parents hugged her and gave her candy and let us play with her toys.  when, my parents came to her house - i was thinking - oh, no - another spanking for not telling them where i went.  but, strangely - i don't remember being spanked again. 

[prometheus]

I fixed it.


Do they need to respect the teachers ability to teach or the teacher's ability to smack?



And while spanking might not be abuse, it is violence.



Anyway, those that specialize in human behavior, child psychology, pedagogy and teaching, etc have concluded that spanking is wrong. Just read through the research.



A person uploaded part of a documentary on this to youtube:

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

  - 5

- 6

- 7

- 8

- 9

- 10

- 11

- 12

- 13

- 14

- 15

- 16

- 17

- 18

- 19

- 20

21

- 22

- 23

- 24

- 25

- 26

- 27

- 28

- 29

- 30

- 31

-32

- 33

- 34

- 35

- 36

- 37

- 38

- 39

- 40

- 41

- 42

- 43

- 44

- 45

- 46

- 47

- 48

- 49

- 50

- 51

- 52

- 53

- 54

- 55

- 56

- 57

- 58

- 59

[thalbergmad]

I fixed it.


Do they need to respect the teachers ability to teach or the teacher's ability to smack?



And while spanking might not be abuse, it is violence.



Anyway, those that specialize in human behavior, child psychology, pedagogy and teaching, etc have concluded that spanking is wrong. Just read through the research.

Children need to know that it is possible that they may be spanked by their teachers if they misbehave. Spanking rarely needs to take place, but the threat must be there.

Spanking is not violence, it is correction.

You write as if "all" specialists conclude that spanking is wrong. When this problem was in the newspapers in the UK a couple of years back, there were many specialists that were for retaining it. You should do some more research.

Even if it is wrong, it can still work.

Thal





 

[pianistimo]

communication grows at each age.  you can't require something too difficult for a child who is not at that particular stage of development.  so, i think, in general that all parents should take a child development class to know if what they are expecting is reasonable.  and, many varied ways of approaching discipline creatively.  for instance, i think it is reasonable to 'hold' a child - until they get hold of their anger.  i've seen this work - simply talking through feelings and having the child explain why they are really mad or sad or whatever.  when a child is listened to - it does promote trust and a feeling of security.  only getting physical punishment could alienate some children who are extremely sensitive.

that said, most parents can tell when their OWN child is in need of a swat.  i don't think it's the swat - but it's the showing to the child that 'this is enough.'  change the behavior.  my kids laugh when i say i'm going to spank them.  i rarely, if ever do/did.  my 5 year old probably doesn't remember the last time she got one.  i think as parents get older - they have less feelings that the child is challenging them personally - but realizing that they are expressing little by little the need to grow and be independent.  but, the parents should decide what steps can be taken at what age - and let them feel the little steps but not take huge gigantic leaps. 

[thalbergmad]

only getting physical punishment could alienate some children who are extremely sensitive.

Agreed, but parents and teachers need the freedom to find out what works best. Being tied by Government intervention is counter productive.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I fixed it.


Do they need to respect the teachers ability to teach or the teacher's ability to smack?



And while spanking might not be abuse, it is violence.



Anyway, those that specialize in human behavior, child psychology, pedagogy and teaching, etc have concluded that spanking is wrong. Just read through the research.



A person uploaded part of a documentary on this to youtube:

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

  - 5

- 6

- 7

- 8

- 9

- 10

- 11

- 12

- 13

- 14

- 15

- 16

- 17

- 18

- 19

- 20

21

- 22

- 23

- 24

- 25

- 26

- 27

- 28

- 29

- 30

- 31

-32

- 33

- 34

- 35

- 36

- 37

- 38

- 39

- 40

- 41

- 42

- 43

- 44

- 45

- 46

- 47

- 48

- 49

- 50

- 51

- 52

- 53

- 54

- 55

- 56

- 57

- 58

- 59

Oh great, i must look through all of those.

Thanks

Thal

[prometheus]

According to the bible you need to stone disobedient children to death.



Spanking encourages a violent and authoritarian society. It teaches children anti-democratic ways of thinking. People that have been spanked as children are more authoritative, more violent and have twice the chance to beat their spouse.



Removing spanking will benefit society as a whole. All those problems Thal talks about are worsened by spanking.


This is really science vs intuition and/or dogma. Just as science vs creationism. You may be raised thinking that spanking is good, or that god created the earth. And it may seem obvious to you that the earth is created by god and that spanking is beneficial, but if you take a close look through scientific method you will find things are way different.

[prometheus]

Oh great, i must look through all of those.

Thanks

Thal

Haha, no you don't have to. Actually, all those are a few minutes long. You can go to

...and watch only those with titles you find interesting.

But you seem not to understand why spanking was banned. The reasons for this are all explained in these videos.

[pianistimo]

thal, you and i should put up some u-tubes of children who are now in jail for killing their parents.  spoiled brat kind of children.  or, the thugs who did in two teachers.  broke one's neck - and the other one had his jaw broken (which was really difficult to fix and put him out of work for a long time). 

society would be right if it was - parents, teachers, children - as it is now - social workers, teachers, children, parents.  that's the order.  the parents on 'on trial' as though they must be spied upon to do a proper job.  this is ridiculous.  it's big brother at work.  although, i must say that pennsylvania is a lot different than california.  there is a tendency in california to take away children for supposed 'child abuse.'  some may be right - if the parents are druggies.  but, for discipline?  moderate and not abusive?  for taking the phone away or for having privileges taken away - a child can go to court and sue parents?    wierd.

[thalbergmad]

Spanking encourages a violent and authoritarian society. It teaches children anti-democratic ways of thinking. People that have been spanked as children are more authoritative, more violent and have twice the chance to beat their spouse.

Oh, so since it has been banned at school and in the home, we should have no teenage violence, or it should have decreased dramatically.

In UK, we have an explosion of teenage violence. The softly softly approach appears not to be working.

Thal

[prometheus]

And let's ask those children if they were spanked and properly raised.

If you raise a child properly, setting a good example, building a good, but not equal, relation, not using violence, then that child will not become a murderer.



All murderers are either abused as children, have brain damage, have a mental disorder or are psychopaths.


Or they are politicians/leaders.

[thalbergmad]

as it is now - social workers, teachers, children, parents.  that's the order. 

In England it is Social workers, teachers, children, parents, probation officer.

Thal

[prometheus]

In UK, we have an explosion of teenage violence. The softly softly approach appears not to be working.

I am not really taking a position on soft vs hard. Just on violence vs non-violence.


If you believe you can't be strict without violence then you are obviously wrong.


As a parent you have a lot of power over your child without using any violence. And when the child becomes older it is either sensible or it misbehaves because of hormones/puberty which will go away with time.

[thalbergmad]

I am not really taking a position on soft vs hard. Just on violence vs non-violence.


If you believe you can't be strict without violence then you are obviously wrong.

If you believe spanking is violence, you are obviously wrong

[pianistimo]

 

perhaps this whole thing would be better understood in the light of at what ages children respond to what stimulus.  a mild smack on the rear isn't going to damage a two year old and may in fact keep them from getting run over by a car.  but, as prometheus says -if a child is still being spanked as a teenager - perhaps they will become depressed or feel abused.  no parent wants their child (at least i don't) to feel that they cannot become their own self.  an adult.  sooner or later.

teaching, imo, is the idea that you are instilling concepts one at a time and hopefully the end result is responsibility for one's own actions.  i think it is instilling habituation.  by age 5 - i would think that a child would have a sense of doing things from love instead of fear - from parents.  because they know the parent isn't going to ask them to do something damaging to themselves.  i think boys tend to challenge their fathers occasionally - but i can speak from experience that boys also listen better to their fathers than mothers BECAUSE of a little fear.  i think that's why God made fathers.  mothers are the countermeasure.  too much doting and/or spoiling just makes them think that the world owes them a living.

[thalbergmad]

All murderers are either abused as children, have brain damage, have a mental disorder or are psychopaths.

How many non murderers have the same qualities?

Thal

[prometheus]

What is your definition of violence if it doesn't include spanking?

[thalbergmad]

a mild smack on the rear isn't going to damage a two year old and may in fact keep them from getting run over by a car. 

Yeh, but in 20 years time, they might become a mass murderer because of that smack.

Thal

[prometheus]

How many non murderers have the same qualities?

Thal

Many people. Just look at serial killers. You will see that these factors do influence the behavior of those people. But that doesn't mean all people that have these qualities are potential serial killers.


But it clearly shows that being abused or even spanked is damaging to a person.

[thalbergmad]

What is your definition of violence if it doesn't include spanking?

According to my dictionary:

violent adj. Involving, casued by, acting with, GREAT PHYSICAL FORCE.

Hardly a smack on the butt, unless you are doing it with a baseball bat.

Thal

[pianistimo]

why would people such as thal and myself actually thank our parents for holding the line?  there is such a thing as a very busy child.  one who continually gets into predicaments and 'situations.'  my husband related one such incident of himself - when he locked a neighbor in a chickencoop.

[prometheus]

Maybe I should take away this very old idea that people, and animals, learn things through punishment and reward.

This is false. No creature on this planet learns things through punishment and reward. That's old refuted psychology.


But it is amazing how many people still believe this and base the way they raise their children on this.

[thalbergmad]

But it clearly shows that being abused or even spanked is damaging to a person.

Abused, yes
Spanked, no

[thalbergmad]

But it is amazing how many people still believe this and base the way they raise their children on this.

Not amazing at all.

Millions of parents must have realised that it works.

Thal

[pianistimo]

the ages on which this psychology of reward and punishment, imo, is 1-3 or 4 .  by then, habits are instilled.  i don't ever remember spanking as a first choice or even at all with a one year old.  but, rewards and punishments - yes!  two year olds challenge EVERY boundary.  they want to know if you love them enough to keep the boundaries there.  otherwise - 'no' becomes a word that they parrot.

have you ever seen a two year old that will not sit, will not stay quiet, and annoys the heck out of you?  do you wonder why they are like this?  of course, play time is all well and good - but there is such a thing as 'quiet time' too.  quiet time can be 'established.'

[prometheus]

According to my dictionary:

violent adj. Involving, casued by, acting with, GREAT PHYSICAL FORCE.

Hardly a smack on the butt, unless you are doing it with a baseball bat.

Thal

A common definition of 'violence' is inflicting pain through physical force

I mean that definition of violence. Not the one you quoted.

[thalbergmad]

why would people such as thal and myself actually thank our parents for holding the line?   

I would never dare steal anything or swear in front of my parents. I knew what would happen.

It was discipline, i was rarely spanked, the threat was mostly sufficient.

I did not thank my parents at the time but i do now.

Thal

[prometheus]

Not amazing at all.

Millions of parents must have realised that it works.

Thal

Then they clearly falsly realized this because it is impossible for our brains to operate in such a way.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, take ANY culture.  our cultures are relatively 'pain free' when it comes to discipline than some others!  watch any animal.  watch bear mothers with their cubs.  they learn to listen.  i think the animal world is a good indication of 'intentions' of parenting.  animals do not typcially abuse their children - but they know when it is good for a 'child' to be quiet for their own safety or to hurry.  take a little family of ducks or geese - they have to teach them to hurry and to hide - and they don't take 'no' for an answer.

[thalbergmad]

A common definition of 'violence' is inflicting pain through physical force

I mean that definition of violence. Not the one you quoted.

Oh really, i must write to the Oxford University Press and tell them they are wrong.

By your definition, violence would include handing someone a mug of hot coffee.

When i use the word "violence" i am talking of something severe or extreme, which is perhaps why you consider spanking to be violence and i do not.

Thal

[prometheus]

I am not saying children shouldn't learn anything or that one should not try to discipline them.


I am just saying that reward and punishment is not the system through which creatures on this planet learn things, though it does seem to be the case if you just look at it.

And I am saying that spanking Children has been shown to be damaging for the child while not playing any role in learning the child correct behavior.