Is physical punishment justifiable?

[counterpoint]

Perhaps not, but do their experiences count for nothing?

What do you mean with "experiences"?

You think, children are "bad" out of nothing (or by being infected with the original sin) ?

[thalbergmad]

But how could I know this for sure. Maybe there are negative effects.

Maybe there are not.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

What do you mean with "experiences"?

I mean the plural of experience

[counterpoint]

I mean the plural of experience

The experience, that your kids are smarter than you? 

[thalbergmad]

Really, personal experience is useless. You often need to do research on a large number of people over a long period of time.

Well, to my possibly unscientific mind, if i wanted to learn about children, i would be inclined to ask a large number of parents over a long period of time.

When i was buying a Lotus Esprit Turbo, i joined a forum of owners and asked questions to a lot of people over a long period of time. It would seem to be a good way of gathering information.

I am now going to bed prommy.

Nice talking with you.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The experience, that your kids are smarter than you? 

Impossilble, as i have not got any

I shoot blanks.

Thal

[prometheus]

We humans all have a brain. It is not well understood how it works.


So let's just ask random people how their brain works. They should know. They have experiences with using a brain all the time. A lot of experience.


Based on these personal experiences what exactly can you learn about how the brain actually works?

[counterpoint]

Impossilble, as i have not got any

I knew - it was a question in subjunctive 

[thalbergmad]

Millions of people have children. It is not well known how they work.

So lets just ask random parents how their children work. They should know. They have experiences with their children all the time. A lot of experience.

Based on these personal experiences, what exactly can you learn about children?

Everything.

Nite

Thal

[counterpoint]

Millions of people have children. It is not well known how they work.

So lets just ask random parents how their children work. They should know. They have experiences with their children all the time. A lot of experience.

Based on these personal experiences, what exactly can you learn about children?

Everything.

Nite

Thal

That's a great idea!
There are many parents who never spank their children, and i bet, these children are happier than the spanked ones. And they are as well-mannered as the spanked (at least!)

[debussy symbolism]

Like the dancing bears. They don't learn to dance. Their instinct to avoid pain gets conditioned to make them 'dance'.

Same with children. They don't learn anything. They just try to avoid pain. Nothing positive is learned.

"Dancing bears" dance with no realisation that they are dancing. However, with humans, humans have the capacity to learn that they are punished for a reason. You are right, spanking someone with no explanation for your reasoning is completely useless. However, spanking a child and explaining why he is being spanked will teach him the proper behavior, and even if he doesn't realise it at the moment, eventually, it will make sense to him as he is a human and not a bear. If a child isn't spanked then he will not really associate his wrong doings with anything "bad." And as children are less logical, they may not understand that.

[thalbergmad]

"Dancing bears" dance with no realisation that they are dancing. However, with humans, humans have the capacity to learn that they are punished for a reason. You are right, spanking someone with no explanation for your reasoning is completely useless. However, spanking a child and explaining why he is being spanked will teach him the proper behavior, and even if he doesn't realise it at the moment, eventually, it will make sense to him as he is a human and not a bear. If a child isn't spanked then he will not really associate his wrong doings with anything "bad." And as children are less logical, they may not understand that.

I am 100% behind you on this one.

Well said.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

There are many parents who never spank their children, and i bet, these children are happier than the spanked ones. And they are as well-mannered as the spanked (at least!)

I sincerely hope they are as well behaved.

But as Prometheus explained, personal experiences are useless.

He will only accept evidence from people with 100 letters after their name who are so busy telling others how to treat their children, they probably spend about 10 minutes a week with their own, that is if they have yet to work out how to acquire them

Thal

[prometheus]

"Dancing bears" dance with no realisation that they are dancing. However, with humans, humans have the capacity to learn that they are punished for a reason.

In humans it is the same thing. A child avoiding pain is just an instinct for avoiding pain being conditioned to include that action as a cause of pain. Nothing more.

[thalbergmad]

In humans it is the same thing. A child avoiding pain is just an instinct for avoiding pain being conditioned to include that action as a cause of pain. Nothing more.

Depends on the age of the child surely.

A child of 6 for instance having being spanked and given an explanation why has more realisation than a dancing bear.

I guess you will now argue the upper age limit of a child.

Thal

BTW, Good morning

[prometheus]

If you give a child an explanation about something that is wrong then that will have effect. You nuture the outgrowth of the child's natural ability to have morality, for example.



But spanking has nothing to do with it. If you spank and then explain. Then first you inflict pain, cause fear, damage the trust relationship and teach about using violence to get your way.

And then you explain why something is wrong. Why spank first? It only damages and has nothing to do with what you want to teach. You are undermining the lesson you are about to give the child.



And children can't reason. So if you tell them something is wrong they will just accept it, as long as they are young enough. Maybe they won't like it, but they will accept.



A bear and a child are certainly not the same in terms of mental and intellectual capabilities. But on a basic level their brains, and our brains, all work the same. While a child has much more innate mental capabilities than a bear and can learn a lot more, the process through which they learn is the same.


The punishment-reward thing is just wrong. It doesn't work in a bear, it doesn't work in a child, it doesn't work in a pig, it doesn't work in an adult. And in all those cases, for a long time, experts thought that they say that it did work. They were wrong.


Humans have been teaching each other and animals since the early beginning. But only about 50 years ago we realized we were wrong all the time.


Now with all these examples, all of them simplified to explain one single point, I certainly don't mean to say that raising children and parenting are simple and easy, even if that may seem so.

[thalbergmad]

But spanking has nothing to do with it. If you spank and then explain. Then first you inflict pain, cause fear, damage the trust relationship and teach about using violence to get your way.

Depends on the severity of the spanking and status of the relationship in the first place.

When as a 7 year old, i ran out in front of a car in a rush to get to the ice cream van and nearly got myself killed, a light spanking and an explanation ensured i did not do it again.

Did it damage the relationship with my mother - no
Did  it cause fear - no
Did it teach about using violence to get your way - no

Thal

[pianolearner]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but speaking from personal experience as a mother--Much of the time, hitting a child is an expression of anger and frustration in the parent, and in my opinion, virtually never justified. 

Although I am not a parent, I completely agree, basing my opinion on observation and personal experience. My dad had a very short temper and I was sometimes spanked because I was doing something that annoyed him. I wasn't misbehaving (looking back now), I was just acting like, well, a child! It wasn't as though I was given a warning, it would be more like, ['WHACK'], "stop doing that"!

Going back to what I said earlier, the best behaved children in my extended family are the ones who had never been spanked. A child generally understands the difference between right and wrong without having to associate wrong with physical punishment.

I also think back to my school days when teachers were allowed to administer physical discipline, such as the cane. I remember the tougher kids preferred to be given the cane rather than writing out lines or detention....

If and when and I ever do have children, I would avoid spanking, I don't believe it's necessary.

[zheer]

   As a young person growing up in the school i was sent to, teacher would beat us from the age of 4 - 9, slapping on the face, smashing the the hands with sticks and general psyocological control. Here in the Uk it is the other way round ,school children beat the teachers ( so i've heard).
    With me it is fairly simple these-dayz, anyone above the age  of 16, who attacks me will end up in hospital.Anyone under the age of 16 who threatens to use violence i believe is wrong to use physical punishment.

[prometheus]

Let me correct you

Did it damage the relationship with my mother - yes
Did it destroy the relationship with my mother - no


A child depends on their parents for protection. If that parent suddenly does the opposite it does damage the relationship. You can deny it as much as you want, but it has a negative effect.
What if your friend beats you up if you make a terrible mistake?


If a child does something wrong and it fears to be spanked, that's the whole reason it has any effect in the first place so I don't see how you can deny it, then it will not build a trust relationship with the parent. The child will lie, trick the parents, deny to prevent being spanked again.

Do you really think that person as an adult, when it has a serious problem, will go to the parents for advice?
No. The parent was always someone who punished after a mistake or at a problem. So you don't tell your parents your problems and mistakes. You go to someone else or even keep it for yourself.

That's not a healthy relationship. You need to be able to trust your parents.


Did  it cause fear - yes
Did it cause me to fear my mother - no


If a child doesn't fear to get spanked, then why would a child care? Sure, if inflicts pain. But that's temporary. The fear more pain is what has the effect in the first place. Without the fear element spanking has no effect on the child's behavior whatsoever.

Did it teach about using violence to get your way - yes


This is pretty clear. You now think that spanking is ok. So you do believe in inflicting pain,  beating up people that cause you problems, spanking etc.

I would only use violence in self defense of myself, my friends, my community and my family. Not because violence has a positive effect on the person I use it against but just to save my skin just right at that moment.

You admitted using violence against naughty kids that stole your milk. So you do believe in violence. Otherwise you wouldn't have done what you described.

[prometheus]

You can also see Zheer's response. He will not only defend himself if he is attacked. He will make sure he lashes back at the attacker after he has succesfully defended himself. This is also a form of physical punishment.

So he believes in violence in this case. Not saying that he is a violent person. But I would use all the violence I need to protect myself, but nothing more. If I need to punch once and then I am able to run away I hope I will do that. While Zheer seems to want to give his attacker some punishment, having him end up in the hospital.


Maybe I will lose my temper and beat up an attacker. Hard to know.

[zheer]

.

So he believes in violence in this case. Not saying that he is a violent person.

Maybe I will lose my temper and beat up an attacker. Hard to know.

   Well, if someone intends to cause you harm, i dont see why one should just stand back and let it happen. Though i do believe that it's wise to avoid being in such a situation in the first place.
   You know we all have a fligh or fight response, some choose to fight some choose just freez, those who have been trumatized tend to freez .So yes violence is the last resort.
     Yes its true in some country to kill in self defence is equal to murder, so yes one does have to draw the line some-where.

[prometheus]

Ok, maybe you didn't mean what you said. I though you meant that you wouldn't just use violence to defend but also to retaliate.

[zheer]

Ok, maybe you didn't mean what you said. I though you meant that you wouldn't just use violence to defend but also to retaliate.

  No i've had enough, if some-one intends to kill or just to beat you black and blue, then yeah it an eye for an eye touth for touth limb for limb.

[thalbergmad]

Let me correct you

Did it damage the relationship with my mother - yes
Did it destroy the relationship with my mother - no

Did  it cause fear - yes
Did it cause me to fear my mother - no

Did it teach about using violence to get your way - yes

Let me correct you.

So, although you have never met me or any of my family, you are now correcting me about my relationship with my mother. This is beyond idiotic, absurd, imbesilic in the extreme and insulting.

You know nothing about my relationship with my mother so how the hell would you know. The answer is simple, you don't, you know absolutely nothing.

Despite the fact i was spanked as a child, my mother would be the first person i would turn to in times of crises, so your other sentence was nonsense in my case.

You cannot simply apply some kind of forumla that applies to all children. To do so is beyond ignorance.

Thal

[debussy symbolism]

If you give a child an explanation about something that is wrong then that will have effect. You nuture the outgrowth of the child's natural ability to have morality, for example.


But spanking has nothing to do with it. If you spank and then explain. Then first you inflict pain, cause fear, damage the trust relationship and teach about using violence to get your way.

And then you explain why something is wrong. Why spank first? It only damages and has nothing to do with what you want to teach. You are undermining the lesson you are about to give the child.



And children can't reason. So if you tell them something is wrong they will just accept it, as long as they are young enough. Maybe they won't like it, but they will accept.



A bear and a child are certainly not the same in terms of mental and intellectual capabilities. But on a basic level their brains, and our brains, all work the same. While a child has much more innate mental capabilities than a bear and can learn a lot more, the process through which they learn is the same.

The thing is with giving an explanation, is that a logic explanation alone will probably not ensure anything. Yes, the child may understand it, but since he has no memory of being spanked because of doing that something, he will essentially continue doing it in the future. Yes, an ideal situation would be to use reason alone and no physical punishment, but that will probably not work with most or all children. Simply put, when a child learns that he will be spanked, he is more probably not going to do that situation again.

Spanking(if mild) doesn't cause fear. Beating causes fear. You don't damage the parent-child relationship, in fact, you secure it. If you do not make sure that the child behaves morally in the future, he will continue on acting like he did and that has a potential to sever relationships. Many children were slapped and do you think that slapping alone causes them to betray their mothers?

Actually, a child who can't reason will not accept any logical explanation, naturally. He will not accept any explanation at all because he still acts out of his instinct and not intellect, so any form of explanation will not work. This of course applies to younger children. However, they will recognize spanking, as that creates a stimulus through something which they understand. Yes, at that point, they will associate the wrongdoing with spanking, but later on they will understand the logic of it.

Yes, all brains are very similar to each other, different only in size, but what a child has is the capacity of intellect. So even if he doesn't at the moment realize why he is being spanked, despite the explanation, he will later on understand. An explanation alone will not come through because the child isn't yet capable of grasping the concept. Again this is about younger children and children that are preteen in years should be ready to understand concepts.

[thalbergmad]

Spanking(if mild) doesn't cause fear. Beating causes fear.

Correct.

Thal

[prometheus]

Despite the fact i was spanked as a child, my mother would be the first person i would turn to in times of crises, so your other sentence was nonsense in my case.

Maybe so. But that is only in spite of her spanking you. You are really being incredible dense.

[prometheus]

The thing is with giving an explanation, is that a logic explanation alone will probably not ensure anything.

I am not saying that you should reason with a child, that would be impossible. You need to make it clear that something is wrong behavior.

I am really saying the same thing as those that say you beat first, and then talk. I say, talk only. Because the beating only damages that what you try to learn the child.

...but since he has no memory of being spanked because of doing that something, he will essentially continue doing it in the future.

This is just an absurd and baseless claim.

And do you really think children will do anything unless they fear pain? (even though you don't want to use that word)

Yes, an ideal situation would be to use reason alone and no physical punishment, but that will probably not work with most or all children. Simply put, when a child learns that he will be spanked, he is more probably not going to do that situation again.

Yes, but he has learned nothing else. He hasn't learned what is good behavior and what not. He has only learned that if he does that something and their parent finds out they will suffer pain.

Spanking(if mild) doesn't cause fear. Beating causes fear.

So what is spanking then? And why does it have any effect at all? Does it cause pain but not fear of enduring that pain again. I don't say that a child will fear their parents. They will fear getting spanked. If they don't fear getting spanked then what effect does it have? Why wouldn't they go on with the wrong type of behavior?

You don't damage the parent-child relationship, in fact, you secure it.

If someone inflicts pain unto you surely this will not improve the relationship between the two.

Would you hit an animal? Or your friend? Just to 'secure the relationship'?

Sure, with an adult friend reasoning is possible. But they will still not like it be have pain inflicted unto them. So is beating your friend a good way to get a healthy relationship? If not, why not?

If you do not make sure that the child behaves morally in the future, he will continue on acting like he did and that has a potential to sever relationships.

Spanking a child does not have any effect on the child's development of sense of morality. What they see is their parent getting angry and spanking them.

Many children were slapped and do you think that slapping alone causes them to betray their mothers?

No. But surely it will hurt trust and loyalty.

Actually, a child who can't reason will not accept any logical explanation, naturally.

But if you spank him first he suddenly will? Again, people claimed that just spanking is bad. You need to talk afterwards. So then they are suddenly reasonable? If not, then why do you make this objection at all?

He will not accept any explanation at all because he still acts out of his instinct and not intellect, so any form of explanation will not work.

Again there seems to be the assumption that if you don't spank you should allow the child to do everything it wants. I am not proposing no punishment. I am proposing no physical punishment.

And on top of that through punishment a child won't learn anything. But it will change it's behavior.

This of course applies to younger children. However, they will recognize spanking, as that creates a stimulus through something which they understand. Yes, at that point, they will associate the wrongdoing with spanking, but later on they will understand the logic of it.

They won't learn anything. It has no influence on the outgrowth of their innate abilities.

Yes, all brains are very similar to each other, different only in size, but what a child has is the capacity of intellect. So even if he doesn't at the moment realize why he is being spanked, despite the explanation, he will later on understand.

Really, this whole point opposes your view. An animal will also recognize pain and avoid certain behavior. Just as a child. But a child has a brain that is developing. An animal has not.


You need to appear to the child's intellect, eventhough it is not capable of reasonable thought.

An explanation alone will not come through because the child isn't yet capable of grasping the concept.

But an explanation and spanking will? And aren't you repeating yourself? Aren't you trying to say something but you don't know what?

Again this is about younger children and children that are preteen in years should be ready to understand concepts.

The moment children are older their brains have already developed. Their personality is already formed. You can reason with them all you want, but then it's too late. Their sense of morality, sense of compassion, sense of discipline, all these things, have already formed.

You can talk all day about compassion, discipline right and wrong, but their brain has already settled.

[opus10no2]

Spank me.

[prometheus]

Ok, let's say we want a child to like classical music. How do we teach that child to do so?



One way is through punishment and reward, including spanking if you want.



The child is put in a room with classical music playing. Every time it is able to give the music attention for 5 minutes, at first but more later, you will reward it. If it makes it clear that it is bored and it ignores the music then you punish it.

Then you ask the child if it liked the music afterwards. If it says no, you spank it. If it says yes, you give it candy or toys.



Now do you really thing that this will make the child actually honestly like classical music?


No. It will learn to sit still even though the music doesn't interest it. It will answer that it likes classical music even though the child does not like classical music.


Actually, it will probably end up hating classical music for obvious reasons.


Now if anyone makes objections, you can make the reward&punishment as minor as you want.



Does anyone actually believe you can teach anything through this method? If you can't teach music, or language then how can you teach anything at all?

[thalbergmad]

Maybe so. But that is only in spite of her spanking you. You are really being incredible dense.

What a ridiculous thing to say, you really are a moron of the highest grade.

Do you honestly think that a pompous twit with a encyclopedia sticking out of his ass can tell someone about their relationship with their mother, when he has never met them.

Please go and test your boring and ridiculous theories on someone else.

Thal

[prometheus]

Ok, let me give one more example.


Say you want your child to be hard-working and disciplined. Now you could just punish your child if it behaves the wrong way. But we already know that does not work.


So what do you do?


No you don't give the child a long lecture trying to explain based on reason and logic what is so good about working hard and discipline.


What you do is this:


You take your child with you to your vegetable garden. Early on a Saturday morning if you want. And there you show discipline and hard work. And you encourage your child to do the same.

Now, if everything is right the child should already be willing to try this out and help his or her father.

So then you are doing something with your child, hard work in the early morning in a garden. The child helps you, you help the child.


Now, if it doesn't like to do this, which may very well be possible, and refused to go then you don't just will the child into this, though you may try at first. You think of something else and try that.

Maybe have the child help clean the dishes or cut potatoes with his or her mother.



Now the child may already be totally lazy and spoiled. But then you started too late. Really, a child's mind is quite susceptible to influence by others and of course especially the parents. So if you counter that the child will just refuse until you spank it then you are just wrong and I don't think anyone will dare to claim this.

[prometheus]

What a ridiculous thing to say, you really are a moron of the highest grade.

Do you honestly think that a pompous twit with a encyclopedia sticking out of his ass can tell someone about their relationship with their mother, when he has never met them.

Please go and test your boring and ridiculous theories on someone else.

Thal

As I said, you are being dense. I never said that you don't have a good relationship with your mother. I don't know anything about that, like you say, and I gladly accept you have a very good relationship with your mother.


My father spanked me and I have a very good relationship with him.



But that's not because he spanked me.

If he never spanked me I may have developed this good relationship that I have with him right now a bit earlier. Surely the good relationship I have with him right now was threatened a little bit by the spanking he did.

[debussy symbolism]

I am not saying that you should reason with a child, that would be impossible. You need to make it clear that something is wrong behavior.

Making something clear to the child is making the child believe that what you are saying is reasonable. What you said counteracts your second sentence. If you are making something clear, you are most likely using logic, which as we established the child does not yet possess.

I am really saying the same thing as those that say you beat first, and then talk. I say, talk only. Because the beating only damages that what you try to learn the child.


This is just an absurd and baseless claim. Do you really think children will do anything unless they fear, eventhough you don't want to use the world, pain?

What I meant was, and I am sorry if I caused confusion, that when you spank a child for his misbehaviour and afterwards explain why the beating took place, the child at the moment will not perhaps fully understand why he is being beaten, but the association of his wrong doing will be associated with pain, so he will eschew the situation in the future. As he gets older, he will hopefully understand why he was being beaten. If however you only apply logic, not only will the child not acquire it, but he is more likely to continue his actions because he does not associate them with punishment.

Yes, but he has learned nothing else. He hasn't learned what is good behavior and what not. He has only learned that if he does something and their parent finds out they will suffer pain.


So what is spanking then? And why does it have any effect at all? Does it cause pain but not fear of enduring that pain again. I don't say that a child will fear their parents. They will fear getting spanked. If they don't fear getting spanked then what effect does it have? Why wouldn't they go on with the wrong type of behavior?

Yes, spanking does in itself not teach anything related to good behavior, but it will teach the child that that behavior will result in spanking. If he doesn't learn that his actions will result in pain, he will persist them.

If a child fears spanking he will avoid the behavior.

If someone inflicts pain unto you surely this will not improve the relationship between the two.

Would you hit an animal? Or your friend? Just to 'secure the relationship'?

Sure, with an adult friend reasoning is possible. But they will still not like it be have pain inflicted unto them. So is beating your friend a good way to get a healthy relationship? If not, why not?

You don't understand what I meant. By securing a relationship I meant potentially securing a relationship which might otherwise get ruined if the child persists the unwanted behavior. When you spank a child and explain the reasoning, the child will not feel a secured relationship, because he doesn't acknowledge his wrongdoings due to a lack of logic. However, as he doesn't follow his wrong habits, and later on understands why, his relationship with his parent will strengthens. Lets say a child is spanked for punching another kid. If he isn't stopped, he will keep on punching kids and later on might turn on his parents. A child that got spanked may feel upset, but as he doesn't later on get into trouble, he will respect his mother's choice.

You don't want to inflict pain on either animals or grownups. Animals will probably not understand why they are being hurt, and grown-ups do understand why they may be getting hurt.

No. But surely it will hurt trust and loyalty.


Really, this whole point opposes your view. An animal will also recognize pain and avoid certain behavior. Just as a child. But a child has a brain that is developing. An animal has not.


You need to appear to the child's intellect, eventhough it is not capable of reasonable thought.

But an explanation and spanking will? And aren't you repeating yourself? Aren't you trying to say something but you don't know what?

The moment children are older their brains have already developed. Their personality is already formed. You can reason with them all you want, but then it's too late. Their sense of morality, sense of compassion, sense of discipline, all these things, have already formed.

You can talk all day about compassion, discipline right and wrong, but their brain has already settled.

An animal will recognize pain but will not recognize your explanation for the pain. A child will as he become more mature.

Yes, appear to the child's mind is ideal, but for most adults it is impossible.

Brain and personality are intertwined. Both the intellect and the child's personality develop with age. You can't exclude either and both have to be taken into account.

[thalbergmad]

As I said, you are being dense. I never said that you don't have a good relationship with your mother. I don't know anything about that, like you say, and I gladly accept you have a very good relationship with your mother.

you said:

Let me correct you

Did it damage the relationship with my mother - yes

Again, how would you know.

The answer is, you don't, so please stop being dense.

[debussy symbolism]

Ok, let's say we want a child to like classical music. How do we teach that child to do so?


One way is through punishment and reward, including spanking if you want.


The child is put in a room with classical music playing. Every time it is able to give the music attention for 5 minutes, at first but more later, you will reward it. If it makes it clear that it is bored and it ignores the music then you punish it.

Then you ask the child if it liked the music afterwards. If it says no, you spank it. If it says yes, you give it candy or toys.


Now do you really thing that this will make the child actually honestly like classical music?


No. It will learn to sit still even though the music doesn't interest it. It will answer that it likes classical music even though the child does not like classical music.


Actually, it will probably end up hating classical music for obvious reasons.


Now if anyone makes objections, you can make the reward&punishment as minor as you want.


Does anyone actually believe you can teach anything through this method? If you can't teach music, or language then how can you teach anything at all?

Concerning whether the child likes classical music, it is impossible to test, which is why your example is faulty. If for example you want your child to always turn off the faucet after being done with it, you can easily check that. The child can't trick you. Either the faucet is on or off.

[thalbergmad]

No. It will learn to sit still even though the music doesn't interest it. It will answer that it likes classical music even though the child does not like classical music.


Actually, it will probably end up hating classical music for obvious reasons.


Now if anyone makes objections, you can make the reward&punishment as minor as you want.



Does anyone actually believe you can teach anything through this method? If you can't teach music, or language then how can you teach anything at all?

Yes, you are completely correct.

Beethoven was beaten as a child and as a result he never learnt anything and ended up hating music.

Regretfully, any talent he might have had was completely destroyed and he never composed anything of value.

He is now an obscure composer that is largely ignored.

Thal

[prometheus]

Did it damage the relationship with my mother - yes

Again, how would you know.

It would be true in all cases unless you enjoy pain.

[debussy symbolism]

Say you want your child to be hard-working and disciplined. Now you could just punish your child if it behaves the wrong way. But we already know that does not work.

First of all, it does work, it is just the morality and effectiveness of it which is in question.

Ok, let me give one more example.






You take your child with you to your vegetable garden. Early on a Saturday morning if you want. And there you show discipline and hard work. And you encourage your child to do the same.

Now, if everything is right the child should already be willing to try this out and help his or her father.

So then you are doing something with your child, hard work in the early morning in a garden. The child helps you, you help the child.


Now, if it doesn't like to do this, which may very well be possible, and refused to go then you don't just will the child into this, though you may try at first. You think of something else and try that.

Maybe have the child help clean the dishes or cut potatoes with his or her mother.



Now the child may already be totally lazy and spoiled. But then you started too late. Really, a child's mind is quite susceptible to influence by others and of course especially the parents. So if you counter that the child will just refuse until you spank it then you are just wrong and I don't think anyone will dare to claim this.

If the child is for whatever reason refusing to do work, you find out the reason, and give an explanation as to why the child should do work. As I said before, a child may not like your reasoning and may not understand why he has to work, but spanking will get him to work.

If a child is used to a lazy lifestyle, your attempts at changing that will be alot harder, naturally. Logic alone will not help you there.

[prometheus]

Concerning whether the child likes classical music, it is impossible to test, which is why your example is faulty.

I don't see the relevance. You don't need to test it.




Also, we don't disagree that much. We both agree that you can't learn a child something through spanking and that spanking will prevent certain kinds of behavior.


Now what you don't seem to accept is that spanking is damaging on the long term and that there are very good short term alternatives.

[thalbergmad]

It would be true in all cases unless you enjoy pain.

Idiotic generalisation.

[debussy symbolism]

I don't see the relevance. You don't need to test it.


Also, we don't disagree that much. We both agree that you can't learn a child something through spanking and that spanking will prevent certain kinds of behavior.


Now what you don't seem to accept is that spanking is damaging on the long term and that there are very good short term alternatives.

You can't test whether the child likes classical music or just says he likes it to avoid punishment. You can however test whether the faucet is turned off, the door is closed, the other parents aren't complaining, the teachers aren't complaining, etc.

Yes, spanking alone teaches nothing, but spanking in addition to an explanation will enforce the logic further, rather than an explanation which the child will not remember due to no association with spanking.

Spanking is not damaging in long term. It is quite the opposite I think, as it helps enforce good behavior.

[prometheus]

First of all, it does work, it is just the morality and effectiveness of it which is in question.

It doesn't make your child hard-working or disciplined. The child is just forced to do what you want because you have the monopoly on violence.

If the child is for whatever reason refusing to do work, you find out the reason, and give an explanation as to why the child should do work. As I said before, a child may not like your reasoning and may not understand why he has to work, but spanking will get him to work.

Yes, but the spanking has no positive effects in terms of discipline and hard work.

You should only spank if there is no alternative and if the positive effect of the experience of working in the garden is bigger on the long term than the negative effects, which have been firmly established through serious research, of spanking.

Now I do not believe either of these will ever be the case.

You can't test whether the child likes classical music or just says he likes it to avoid punishment.

No need to test this. Maybe this relates at Thalbergmad's attempts at poor reasoning about Beethoven and Mozart.

I never claimed that if you get spanked for not liking classical music you will never be able to enjoy it. TBM even seems to suggest that I claimed that if you get spanked you will never be able to learn anything.

No, you can't test this. A child may actually like classical music even though it was spanked for not wanting to listen to it at first.

But it started to like it because it was listening to it, not because the parent demanded from the child to like it through punishment.

Yes, spanking alone teaches nothing, but spanking in addition to an explanation will enforce the logic further, rather than an explanation which the child will not remember due to no association with spanking.

I have yet to see any argument to support this. And I am sure you are intelligent enough to just make one up. So if this is really true then we should be able to observe this. Do you have any research to support this?

Spanking is not damaging in long term. It is quite the opposite I think, as it helps enforce good behavior.

Again, you may think this. But these is solid scientific consensus that contradicts this idea. It seems that reality is just different from what you like to think.



Ok, now I will give this up. So please, never ever spank children. Even though you seem to think it is ok. Avoid it at all costs.

[thalbergmad]

Oh, i forgot, Mozart did not learn anything from his father as well and ended up hating classical music.

Thal

[debussy symbolism]

It doesn't make your child hard-working or disciplined. The child is just forced to do what you want because you have the monopoly on violence.


Yes, but the spanking has no positive effects in terms of discipline and hard work.

You should only spank if there is no alternative and if the positive effect of the experience of working in the garden is bigger on the long term than the negative effects, which have been firmly established through serious research, of spanking.

Now I do not believe either of these will ever be the case.



Ok, now I will give this up. So please, never ever spank children. Even though you seem to think it is ok. Avoid it at all costs.

If the child isn't forced to do something he won't do it. You can't get him to like hard work, you can get him to get used to it.

Spanking ensures positive results.

Yes we are speaking about the "no alternative" situation.

I would never think about laying a hand on anyone. I am not a parent, let alone an adult.

[thalbergmad]

Ok, now I will give this up.

Now that is music to my ears.

I will also give this up.

Hopefully

Thal

[prometheus]

I can't.


Debussy, there are many ways for a parent to force a child to do something without spanking. I don't understand why you people need to bring up these poor arguments over and over.


Also, I am talking about a normal scenario. There will always be alternatives.

[pianolearner]

Let me correct you

Did it damage the relationship with my mother - yes
Did it destroy the relationship with my mother - no


A child depends on their parents for protection. If that parent suddenly does the opposite it does damage the relationship. You can deny it as much as you want, but it has a negative effect.
What if your friend beats you up if you make a terrible mistake?


If a child does something wrong and it fears to be spanked, that's the whole reason it has any effect in the first place so I don't see how you can deny it, then it will not build a trust relationship with the parent. The child will lie, trick the parents, deny to prevent being spanked again.

Do you really think that person as an adult, when it has a serious problem, will go to the parents for advice?
No. The parent was always someone who punished after a mistake or at a problem. So you don't tell your parents your problems and mistakes. You go to someone else or even keep it for yourself.

That's not a healthy relationship. You need to be able to trust your parents.


Did  it cause fear - yes
Did it cause me to fear my mother - no


If a child doesn't fear to get spanked, then why would a child care? Sure, if inflicts pain. But that's temporary. The fear more pain is what has the effect in the first place. Without the fear element spanking has no effect on the child's behavior whatsoever.

Did it teach about using violence to get your way - yes


This is pretty clear. You now think that spanking is ok. So you do believe in inflicting pain,  beating up people that cause you problems, spanking etc.

I would only use violence in self defense of myself, my friends, my community and my family. Not because violence has a positive effect on the person I use it against but just to save my skin just right at that moment.

You admitted using violence against naughty kids that stole your milk. So you do believe in violence. Otherwise you wouldn't have done what you described.

I agree with this post. It is interesting to note that both Hitler and Stalin were beaten as children. When I talk about spanking I mean inflicting pain on a child as punishment, not just a tap on the face or bum. My dad inflicted pain when he hit me, it wasn't just for show.

[timothy42b]

I think most of you are confusing two very different problems.

Whether a parent should spank is one of them. Clearly a child needs firm discipline in the early stages - the external controls are eventually internalized and become self control.  Clearly spanking can work, clearly also this can be done without spanking.  I'm not sure why you would want to use violence when you have a choice of nonviolent methods, but I doubt that it does much damage in most cases.  We raised two kids largely without spanking, but without an absolute prohibition - they each were probably spanked two or three times before becoming teenagers.  They were and are better behaved than their peers, including some whose parents are much stricter than I (those kids act out when the parent isn't around.)  There are some parents who can't be allowed to spank because it always leads to abuse. 

However, misbehavior in an institutional setting is a completely different problem and I don't see any connection to whether the schools spank or not.  A couple of times in city schools my kids were the only ones with two parents. Many kids barely have one.  In these cases letting the school spank doesn't seem to help at all. 

I also worked several years in mental hospitals with children's wards.  All of those children misbehaved, and we were forbidden to use physical punishment.  Most of the staff resented that and claimed smacking the kids would get them in line.  But if you checked the records, these kids came in with long histories of physical punishment that had done nothing.  The nonphysical methods were slow and frustrating but they eventually worked, and didn't lead to further abuse.