PDA

View Full Version : Spankings- Debate Style



Profesco
16th March 2008, 8:38 PM
We all know what spanking is, and chances are, we've come into contact with it (pun totally intended) at some point in our lives.

I thought it would make a nice debating topic, since it is actually quite controversial. After all, there is a spanking thread in the Misc Polls forum, and it's turned into a veritable debate anyway.
(Mainly thanks to members like myself, Babylon, Synthetic, and Dark SpOOn Bender, among others- we just don't know when to shut up, huh?)

Here is the link. (http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthread.php?t=306598)

Since it came from a polls forum, a lot of the posts are going to be short and insubstantial. It gets interesting, though! Especially around the third and fourth pages.

So let's take facetious's admittedly brusque advice, and discuss the use of spanking in the proper forum.

Is it morally apt?
Does it teach children?
Is it respectable as a form of behavior modification?

-------------------
As a jumping point, here is my first post from the thread:


My experiences have shown spanking in a negative light. I'm one of those 'never hit a woman or child' types, I guess. I highly disagree with spanking as a form of punishment. In fact, I don't think 'discipline' should ever be synonymous with 'pain.'

I am the disciplinarian for my little sisters, and when they're having an attitude or throwing a fit, I hug them.

I stay latched on like a leech, I tell you, and I don't let go for anything! I just keep kissing them all over and saying, "I love you sooo much!" Boy, does that get on their nerves... They always end up giggling and apologizing for their behavior.

Much more has been touched upon since this post, though.

GentleArtillery
16th March 2008, 10:00 PM
Is it morally apt? Since I believe that all violence is morally wrong (yes, I'm provoking you), I believe that spanking is indeed, not morally apt.
Does it teach children? I believe that yes, it might teach children, but I'm quite certain there are better ways - that do not include violence, and that teach them in better ways.
Is it respectable as a form of behavior modification? No. However, I'm not against harsh punishments.

Well, I'll leave it at that. Hopefully, people will argue against me, and the debate will evolution, and there will be balance in the galaxy.

Rensch
16th March 2008, 10:01 PM
Although spanking may work, I believe it should not be done. The problem with spanking is that a child can have a hard time in telling the difference between a "correcting spank" or using violence. Spanking technically teaches a child that it is acceptable to hit others to get what you want. This can make a child to be more violent.

Carlisle
16th March 2008, 10:47 PM
-sighs- I hate our increasing liberal society.

Do you people not realize how punishments worked back in the olden days? Back in our GRANDPARENT'S age? People got the belt, the slipper, the tree brach, smackings, and spankings. It was a common thing to do. And I'm pretty sure the older generations turned out just fine. But NOOO. In today's society we have to cater to eweyone's pwecious fweelings!!!! Boo, too bad. If anything, we need to enforce corpral punishment back into the schools. It's when our society decided to become so liberal and catering that it started to turn into a piece of crap.

Cain Nightroad
17th March 2008, 12:05 AM
Is it morally apt?

This depends on who is doing the spanking; everyone has different morals, and thus some would say no, others would say yes. In my opinion, as long as it doesn't fall into an abuse-level beating, spanking is fine.

Does it teach children?

It teaches children the same way they learn not to touch an oven when it's on. Children respond to the pain as if it were a warning not to do it again...At a young age, the human psyche reacts to things we consider small as large incidents. From that pained finger due to touching the oven, the child may not touch the oven for years, afraid of it, even. Spanking does the same, if done correctly; the pain is enough, and not scarring, enough to show the child that the action was wrong.

Is it respectable as a form of behavior modification?

This depends. As I grew from a small child into a preteen, my parents stopped spanking me when I did something wrong, instead taking away my video games, favorite books, etc. It can be respectable over a time, but if you are still being spanked as a teenager, I find that pathetic.

GentleArtillery
17th March 2008, 1:02 AM
-sighs- I hate our increasing liberal society.

Do you people not realize how punishments worked back in the olden days? Back in our GRANDPARENT'S age? People got the belt, the slipper, the tree brach, smackings, and spankings. It was a common thing to do. And I'm pretty sure the older generations turned out just fine. But NOOO. In today's society we have to cater to eweyone's pwecious fweelings!!!! Boo, too bad. If anything, we need to enforce corpral punishment back into the schools. It's when our society decided to become so liberal and catering that it started to turn into a piece of crap.

Have you been spanked at home or at school? I don't think students that break the rules will stop doing it because they get pain enforced on them. Rather, they will grow rebellious. And as Rensch pointed out: children who are spanked at home, how are they to differ between when to use violence and when not? Spanking, and other forms of corporal punishments, are simply stupid. Violence should be avoided.


It teaches children the same way they learn not to touch an oven when it's on. Children respond to the pain as if it were a warning not to do it again...At a young age, the human psyche reacts to things we consider small as large incidents. From that pained finger due to touching the oven, the child may not touch the oven for years, afraid of it, even. Spanking does the same, if done correctly; the pain is enough, and not scarring, enough to show the child that the action was wrong.

The thing is, it's not the "crime" that unleashes the pain. It's the one who spanks you.
I'm sure that if a kid gets spanked for, as an example, stealing cookies, the kid would be more afraid for the one who spanked the kid, rather than stealing cookies.
If the parent spanks a kid, the kid might loose respect for the parent, or fear him/her. Is that good?

Dark SpOOn Bender
17th March 2008, 2:47 AM
(Mainly thanks to members like myself, Babylon, Synthetic, and Dark SpOOn Bender, among others- we just don't know when to shut up, huh?)

hehe ;D


-sighs- I hate our increasing liberal society.

Do you people not realize how punishments worked back in the olden days? Back in our GRANDPARENT'S age? People got the belt, the slipper, the tree brach, smackings, and spankings. It was a common thing to do. And I'm pretty sure the older generations turned out just fine. But NOOO. In today's society we have to cater to eweyone's pwecious fweelings!!!! Boo, too bad.

We aren't back in the olden days. In the olden days there weren't computers, vaccines, or skyscrapers, and yet the people of the past lived as represented by our own existance today. Does that mean that we should just resort to the obsolete ways of the past just because our ancestors survived in the end? I'm sure most people would say no, including you. Just because some of our grandparents may have gone through hurtful, sometimes violent spankings and could have still become successful has nothing to do with it. My grandfather, may he rest in peace, was spanked as a child, and I can assure you he didn't think it was a good form of punishment. He never hit my mother or my aunts and uncles. As time moves on, we should improve, we should find better methods to deal with our children, we should find ways that take emotions into consideration instead of just dealing out punishment, we should find better ways to teach our children about right and wrong and good and bad behavior, we should learn to control our anger towards others instead of using physical force. Spanking does none of that.
We were also given "pwecious fweelings" as human beings for a reason, and that reason wasn't to ignore them and deem our emotions as pointless. True, punishment shouldn't be disregarded because of the child's emotions, but the type of punishment that brings on those emotions should be thought through. Punishing your children in the end is always going to make them angry, but their being upset should not be a result of pain at the hand of their parents in my opinion. Spanking can create long lasting emotions directed at the parents while the emotions from being grounded or having a video game taken away will usually subside and will most likely not leave an emotional scar, something that spanking might not always, but can, leave.


Although spanking may work, I believe it should not be done. The problem with spanking is that a child can have a hard time in telling the difference between a "correcting spank" or using violence. Spanking technically teaches a child that it is acceptable to hit others to get what you want. This can make a child to be more violent.

ba-da-bing. I agree. The risk of that happening is significant enough to realize that spanking is absolutely not the best way to teach our children. It may not always happen, but you have to take the possibility into consideration. It might not influence them and only give them bad memories, or it could influence them into being more violent, rebellious, and even fearful in the future towards their parents and peers.

Again, I bring up the question - If hitting other people is not tolerated, why should it be considered ok to hit our own children?

Profesco
17th March 2008, 2:56 AM
Do you people not realize how punishments worked back in the olden days? Back in our GRANDPARENT'S age? People got the belt, the slipper, the tree brach, smackings, and spankings. It was a common thing to do.

Carlisle, I would have expected someone who is gay/bi to have a healthy respect for a progressive attitude. If we went back to the mentality of past generations, homosexuality would still be an offense worthy of capitol punishment. I think it's safe to say progress is a desirable thing.


In today's society we have to cater to eweyone's pwecious fweelings!!!!

Lol. I'm not concerned so much with emotion. I look forward to a decline in force and authority, and a rise in intellect and reason. Calling it emotional is simply a point of view.

Ethan
17th March 2008, 3:09 AM
What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about physical force, not a command such as "you are grounded, no phone."

Way to miss the point. My point was that spanking a child isn't any less wrong or any more right then punishing a child through other methods.


I still fail to see the difference. No matter what the motive is, the act of spanking is, by definition, to slap with the flat of the hand. A slap is a kind of strike, and to hit, by definition, means to deal a strike or blow to. Both are forms of physical force, both cause unecessary pain, both can be used to stop somebody from doing something you don't like. Don't even bother with the "I love you so I spanked you" excuse. It isn't out of love, it is just a way for a parent to tell their child "do what I say or I hit you." It's used as a means of expressing authority when the parent isn't willing to use any other method.

The difference is that you will be arrested for giving your child a black eye and welts and bruises. That's abuse. Spanking your child and leaving a small redmark won't get arrested. As for wives husbands aren't obliged to discipline their wives, duh.
And I'm sorry but bullsh*t. It is out of love. You act like parents that spank don't try any other methods prior to the act. If teaching your could why he should stay out of the street won't work, if grounding your kid won't work, if any other non pain method won't work....but no a parent still spanks their child because their lazy. Nice logic.


True, but you saying that all kids who get spanked aren't damaged in some way because of it is merely speculation too. I have good reason to believe that my friends' violence towards each other arose from their spankings in part because of how many times I witnessed them getting spanked..

Then we'll call a stalemate on this.




Babylon, that quote from your site is total malarkey. You're trying to get into the semantics between a spank and a slap. That's not the point. It also tries to give spanking a moral spin. Like I pointed out in your Morals thread- with enough semantics and rationalisation, anything can be justified. Regardless, how you justify something isn't an absolute certainty that that something is truly correct in its own right.

It was't talking about semantics but reasons that motivate each act.


You don't use pain to teach, that's why. You don't spank a kid when he gets his timestables wrong, or spank a kid when she sings off key, even though those are behaviors you may want to correct.


Neither do you ground them. I want to see some proper reasoning for that underlined sentence.


Likewise, you don't use the body's other instinctual adaptations to modify behavior. You don't deny a child calcium and vitamin D so he starts craving and drinking his suppertime milk, do you? You don't inject him with a shot of adrenaline so he'll stop playing videogames and go outside. You don't abuse those biological mechanisms to force children to behave properly.

Not when there are simpler biological mechanism to manipulate. As a person you should use your own discretion.

Zora
17th March 2008, 4:26 AM
Spanking exists, but that doesn't mean its good. If you had to choose between talking to your child and finding out whats wrong and why they acted out or spanking, you will have better luck disciplining with the former. Spanking can create fear, which can lead to other problems. There are much better alternatives that aren't corporeal and more effective.

Anyways, that is my opinion. Short, sweet, and to the point. Or maybe not.

As for if spanking disciplines or not. Well I think it comes down to the child. They either grow rebellious or get disciplined with fear.

j_hunter
17th March 2008, 9:19 AM
This is a very good issue, and one that affects nearly every person.

What about when the violence is used in a way that the child can clearly see is beneficial? Say little Anna is cooking with her parents, Janet and George. They're having a lovely time making a delicious pasta sauce, which Anna will photograph and show to her class tomorrow. Suddenly, Janet spots Anna reaching for a pot with an obviously scalding handle. Janet smacks Anna's hand before she reaches the dangerous pot, then tells her that it could have burnt her.

Anna can clearly see that her actions could have resulted in her own injury. If she's able to see this and rectify her behaviour for the next time she is cooking, then why couldn't the same principle be used in a different situation?

A different example. This time, Fred and his friends are playing in the park. They are chasing each other around the swings, when Fred pushes Toby over and tells him to eff off. Patrick, Fred's father, rushes over and tells Fred not to do that again. Fred complies, but later Patrick sees Fred tripping Toby and shouting at him for no particular reason. Patrick spanks Fred.

Fred, too, should be able to see exactly why he was punished. Spanking has the same concept behind it as sending someone to their room; they have to be able to see what they've done wrong, and realise why it was wrong. If the punishment helps the child to become a better person effectively, then it makes sense.

Though there's a fine line between showing a child what went wrong and hitting them out of anger. One teaches the child how to reflect; the other sets a bad example.

bigpop618
17th March 2008, 9:43 AM
While we are not dogs, this applies to the why spankings can be a good thing

http://www.essortment.com/all/operantpsycholo_rmju.htm

Basically associating things. So if you lie to your parents and the spank you, you learn that lying equals pain. If you lie again you'll know whats coming. Where as if you sit there and have a talk with the kid and say. Lying is bad, Yeah the kid might understand it, but they are more prone to do it again. If you're an ignorant masochist then we wouldn't know how to punish this person. probably hide the belt or something.

While some kids are abused, I am not saying they are right. Spankings are good to an extent. Enough to hurt you but not enough to make you cry foul.


This is a very good issue, and one that affects nearly every person.

What about when the violence is used in a way that the child can clearly see is beneficial? Say little Anna is cooking with her parents, Janet and George. They're having a lovely time making a delicious pasta sauce, which Anna will photograph and show to her class tomorrow. Suddenly, Janet spots Anna reaching for a pot with an obviously scalding handle. Janet smacks Anna's hand before she reaches the dangerous pot, then tells her that it could have burnt her.

Anna can clearly see that her actions could have resulted in her own injury. If she's able to see this and rectify her behaviour for the next time she is cooking, then why couldn't the same principle be used in a different situation?

A different example. This time, Fred and his friends are playing in the park. They are chasing each other around the swings, when Fred pushes Toby over and tells him to eff off. Patrick, Fred's father, rushes over and tells Fred not to do that again. Fred complies, but later Patrick sees Fred tripping Toby and shouting at him for no particular reason. Patrick spanks Fred.

Fred, too, should be able to see exactly why he was punished. Spanking has the same concept behind it as sending someone to their room; they have to be able to see what they've done wrong, and realise why it was wrong. If the punishment helps the child to become a better person effectively, then it makes sense.

Though there's a fine line between showing a child what went wrong and hitting them out of anger. One teaches the child how to reflect; the other sets a bad example.

Great examples.




Have you been spanked at home or at school? I don't think students that break the rules will stop doing it because they get pain enforced on them. Rather, they will grow rebellious. And as Rensch pointed out: children who are spanked at home, how are they to differ between when to use violence and when not? Spanking, and other forms of corporal punishments, are simply stupid. Violence should be avoided.


It depends at what age though. If you get hit at 16 yeah you'll be rebellious but maybe at 5 and you slap him on the hand or on the butt once, I doubt the kid will rebel.

Profesco
17th March 2008, 1:17 PM
Neither do you ground them. I want to see some proper reasoning for that underlined sentence.

Well excuse me! Alright, keep reading- I'll get to it below.


As a person you should use your own discretion.

By the way, this attitude won't help us here, although it is a good attitude. We already know that some people will spank and others won't- we want to find out whether it's okay to do so regardless.


What about when the violence is used in a way that the child can clearly see is beneficial?

Right here, we absolutely do not want to form a child's understanding of the world including the idea that violence solves problems. We should not take the risk that they will learn that violence is acceptable as a solution.


Suddenly, Janet spots Anna reaching for a pot with an obviously scalding handle. Janet smacks Anna's hand before she reaches the dangerous pot, then tells her that it could have burnt her.

This is only going to make sense if you can justify why it's better for Janet to smack her daughter than for her to simply grab her hand.


Fred, too, should be able to see exactly why he was punished. Spanking has the same concept behind it as sending someone to their room; they have to be able to see what they've done wrong, and realise why it was wrong. If the punishment helps the child to become a better person effectively, then it makes sense.

You can show a child what they've done wrong, and give them the knowledge of why it was wrong enough to deserve a disciplinary action, without a spank along the way, though. What is it that you think justifies the additon of violence to any disciplinary action?

@bigpop618: That's a very nice link! Thank you.


Basically associating things. So if you lie to your parents and the spank you, you learn that lying equals pain. If you lie again you'll know whats coming. Where as if you sit there and have a talk with the kid and say. Lying is bad, Yeah the kid might understand it, but they are more prone to do it again

It's not just a battle between "spank" and "explain." There are effective punishments that work without the addition of a spanking.
If your dog behaves in a certain way and you remove a pleasant thing, you will have made it less likely that your dog will behave that way again. Negative punishment is just as effective in this case. We also want to keep in mind that our children are not dogs or rats. Humans are capable of reasoning and deeper thought, including morality. We want to feed the development and use of those functions constantly. That's why we don't tackle education the same way we tackle dogs' obedience school.

Finally, associating pain with a misbehavior has inherent problems for children. A valid point that has been made before is that we want them to avoid the specific consequences of their specific actions. We don't accomplish the growth of thir moral or reasoning development by applying pain as the universal response. They learn to be wary of pain, pain, pain, no matter what it is they're doing. This can contribute to psychological problems like fear, paranoia, and violent behavior.

UltimateNagash
17th March 2008, 1:46 PM
I won't say spanking is good, but being physical does need to be able to do by people looking after kids. If a kid has punched someone, or something bad, like that, running around destroying stuff is another example, the people looking after them need to be able to grab them and stick them down, explain the problem and do the necessary stuff.
Shouldn't be violent but, well, what I just said :D

Dark SpOOn Bender
18th March 2008, 5:00 AM
Way to miss the point. My point was that spanking a child isn't any less wrong or any more right then punishing a child through other methods.

I didn't miss the point. I asked what verbal commands had to do with physical force. They are not the same types of punishment and you cannot always put them on the same level.


The difference is that you will be arrested for giving your child a black eye and welts and bruises. That's abuse. Spanking your child and leaving a small redmark won't get arrested. As for wives husbands aren't obliged to discipline their wives, duh.
And I'm sorry but bullsh*t. It is out of love. You act like parents that spank don't try any other methods prior to the act. If teaching your could why he should stay out of the street won't work, if grounding your kid won't work, if any other non pain method won't work....but no a parent still spanks their child because their lazy. Nice logic.

Regardless of how severe the bruises might be, it is still physically violent. It causes pain. And why aren't husbands obliged to discipline their wives if you think parents are obliged to discipline their children? Both are very close to each other, in the same family, required to support each other. What if your spouse made a significant financial error? What if they were cheating on you? What if they made a mistake that could have put their wellbeing in danger? Should you be allowed to smack them because what they did was "bad behavior" and you want to make sure they never to do it again? What is the difference between hitting your children for doing wrong and hitting anybody else for doing wrong? You keep on going "duh" and "so and so isn't obliged to punish so and so" and yet you have still failed to answer that question thoroughly.

And no, it isn't out of love. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that parents who spank their children do not love their children, but spanking is a quick punishment method used to display authority and sometimes a way of releasing anger that originated from the child's behavior. It isn't about love. That is total BS if you think it always is.

comments in bold.


This is only going to make sense if you can justify why it's better for Janet to smack her daughter than for her to simply grab her hand.

Exactly. Why would a spanking be a better form of punishment in that, or any, situation?
Not only that, but that type of spank isn't a "punishment" smack as much as it is an "I'll save your hand" smack. It was an immediate reaction not meant to punish the child by telling them "try to touch that and I hit you" but rather was simply the quickest way to protect the child at the time. It's more of a reflex.
If your child is about to run into the street, most parents would not run up to them and smack them just as they were going to step onto the road. First they would grab them to get them out of danger, which is why Janet would smack her daughter's hand away to get her out of danger quickly, then they would spank them for punishment.

Poliwag2
18th March 2008, 5:39 AM
I have no qualms with spanking. It is one method of parenting, and its effectiveness will depend upon the myriad other techniques used by the parents.

If by the time your child has matured, (s)he cannot tell the difference between a spank and violence, you are awful parents and should not have reproduced.

Is it morally apt? yes
Does it teach children? yes
Is it respectable as a form of behavior modification? yes

Profesco
18th March 2008, 6:07 AM
Poliwag2, your post offends me. I respect your position, but not your argument. Wait- what argument?

Poliwag2
18th March 2008, 6:24 AM
Poliwag2, your post offends me. I respect your position, but not your argument. Wait- what argument?

There was no argument. There is no argument to this question, and certainly no correct answer. It is simply based upon an individual's belief system.

My point was that spanking is one small part of parenting (for those that use it). Of the infinite other contributions from parents to a child, it is their obligation at some point teach it to distinguish the difference between a reminder of their behaviour and physical violence towards others. Hence spanking is perfectly acceptable in my opinion, with that qualifier.

I expressed myself perhaps in an overly crude manner, and if that offended you, I apologise.

ReallyOcean
18th March 2008, 8:55 AM
If my kid is disobeying a logical reasonable request I'm going to warn him and if he continues I'll spank. No question about it. My parents did the same to me and I turned out fine.

Clash
18th March 2008, 12:52 PM
Smacking or "spanking" children is alright, to a degree. Only to the point where you're correcting the child doing the wrong thing, but nothing more than that. I think people take smacking too seriously because it usually relates to some random parent smacking their child to the point of where it's child abuse.

When I was young I got smacked alot with a wodden spoon. All that did was make sure I snapped every wooden spoon in half when it was used on me.

Profesco
18th March 2008, 8:37 PM
There was no argument. There is no argument to this question, and certainly no correct answer. It is simply based upon an individual's belief system.

Please justify these responses, then:
Is it morally apt? yes
Does it teach children? yes
Is it respectable as a form of behavior modification? yes


My parents did the same to me and I turned out fine.
This isn't a very strong argument, though. There are spanked children who turn out fine and spanked children who don't. Some vow to use spanking on their children and some don't. Some become violent, while others become adamant pacifists. It doesn't prove anything about spanking at all.


When I was young I got smacked alot with a wodden spoon. All that did was make sure I snapped every wooden spoon in half when it was used on me.
Here is a great example of the logic children learn from spanking. (No offense to Clash, of course.)

Cain Nightroad
18th March 2008, 9:35 PM
This isn't a very strong argument, though. There are spanked children who turn out fine and spanked children who don't. Some vow to use spanking on their children and some don't. Some become violent, while others become adamant pacifists. It doesn't prove anything about spanking at all.


There are those that are abused. Abuse is another issue, however. That is beating, not spanking. Pain teaches, when used correctly. Violence accumulates when one is physically struck, as it is the psyche of the being reacting. Ultimately, the violence may be unleashed, but then it ends.

ReallyOcean
18th March 2008, 9:36 PM
Please justify these responses, then:


This isn't a very strong argument, though. There are spanked children who turn out fine and spanked children who don't. Some vow to use spanking on their children and some don't. Some become violent, while others become adamant pacifists. It doesn't prove anything about spanking at all.


Here is a great example of the logic children learn from spanking. (No offense to Clash, of course.)
It isn't a strong argument either way, like you said. I was only stating it.

Plus I think it's one of the easiest/least time consuming/blatantly effective ways to "train" a child. I'm not going to abuse my children. I'm going to give them all that I can within reason. But, I'm also not going to take crap from them.

Heck, my sisters' kids even tell me that they know when they get hit they get hit for a reason and that they shouldn't do whatever they did again because they know it's wrong. I've personally only seem badly behaved children come out of not hitting, but that's just me.

It teaches them something and can even teach respect when they're too young to understand logic and other things.

What's going to help you get the message more if you have the brain capacity of a three year old? "if I do this I'll be hurt" or "If I do this my mother will be angry with me and will try to bargain with me while explaining logically the reasons why she thinks it would be in both of our best interests to... ::snoreeeeeeeeeeee::"

DelilahZombie
18th March 2008, 9:43 PM
Did any of you read that article about how children who are spanked turn out to be sexual deviants?

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080228/spanking-raises-chances-of-risky-deviant-sexual-behavior.htm

this might be slightly off topic or inappropriate, so I'm sorry, but I didn't see anyone saying anything about it.

Cain Nightroad
18th March 2008, 9:45 PM
It isn't a strong argument either way, like you said. I was only stating it.

Plus I think it's one of the easiest/least time consuming/blatantly effective ways to "train" a child. I'm not going to abuse my children. I'm going to give them all that I can within reason. But, I'm also not going to take crap from them.

Yes. It is a completely reasonable form of punishment up to a point.

As for Profesco, are those who become violent or are pacifists are such solely because of spanking? It isn't abuse (up to a point, as aforementioned), but they should be able to deal with the punishment; it is a punishment, and one should face one's consequences. Each parent has a different way of dealing with this sort of thing. Are you questioning the motives of one of the simpler forms of "law"?

Ethan
18th March 2008, 9:56 PM
I didn't miss the point. I asked what verbal commands had to do with physical force. They are not the same types of punishment and you cannot always put them on the same level.

First off I ask that you quote me normally, it makes it a lot easier. And yes you are missing the point. My point is that you are challenging spanking on moral grounds saying that it is unjust to use pain as a form of discipline when other forms of discipline can be used for the same effect. My argument is that this is not sufficient enough of a challenge because pain or no paint the entire point of any form of punishment is negative reinforcement. Either way the child does not want either form of punishment. So then on what grounds are they different? If that cannot be established then spankings cannot be challenged anymore on a moral basis then taking yout daughters cellphone away for a week. Understand?



Regardless of how severe the bruises might be, it is still physically violent. It causes pain. And why aren't husbands obliged to discipline their wives if you think parents are obliged to discipline their children? Both are very close to each other, in the same family, required to support each other. What if your spouse made a significant financial error? What if they were cheating on you? What if they made a mistake that could have put their wellbeing in danger? Should you be allowed to smack them because what they did was "bad behavior" and you want to make sure they never to do it again? What is the difference between hitting your children for doing wrong and hitting anybody else for doing wrong? You keep on going "duh" and "so and so isn't obliged to punish so and so" and yet you have still failed to answer that question thoroughly.


For the same reason a Husband would not ground his wife. A HUSBAND HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY OVER HIS WIFE THEREFORE IS NOT OBLIGED TO PUNISH HER IN ANY FORM. And again you don't see husbands grounding their wives from the telephone do you? And yes I've answered your question quite clearly, but it must be conveniant for you to say I haven't so you can go on to repeat yourself.




And no, it isn't out of love. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that parents who spank their children do not love their children, but spanking is a quick punishment method used to display authority and sometimes a way of releasing anger that originated from the child's behavior. It isn't about love. That is total BS if you think it always is.

What is total BS is that your making a blanket statement for every parent thaty takes it uponthemselves to implement corpral punishment. I don't give a flying f*ck what you think spanking is for to be honest because really doesn't matter WHAT it is for, because that doesn't determine whether a mother or father did the act out of love or not. It's extremely ignorant to assume the place where someone heart is just because they perform an action you frown upon.

GentleArtillery
18th March 2008, 10:53 PM
First off I ask that you quote me normally, it makes it a lot easier. And yes you are missing the point. My point is that you are challenging spanking on moral grounds saying that it is unjust to use pain as a form of discipline when other forms of discipline can be used for the same effect. My argument is that this is not sufficient enough of a challenge because pain or no paint the entire point of any form of punishment is negative reinforcement. Either way the child does not want either form of punishment. So then on what grounds are they different? If that cannot be established then spankings cannot be challenged anymore on a moral basis then taking yout daughters cellphone away for a week. Understand?

But, spanking and other forms of corporal punishment physically harms the body. In my opinion, you have more right over your body than your possessions. The body is a very fragile thing, and violence towards it should be avoided, even if the harm is directed at less, er, delicate body parts, such as the buttocks. By forcing violence upon someone, you are taking from them the freedom of their own body. And that's why I think corporal punishments are bad.

Profesco
18th March 2008, 11:00 PM
My point is that you are challenging spanking on moral grounds saying that it is unjust to use pain as a form of discipline when other forms of discipline can be used for the same effect. My argument is that this is not sufficient enough of a challenge because pain or no paint the entire point of any form of punishment is negative reinforcement. Either way the child does not want either form of punishment. So then on what grounds are they different? If that cannot be established then spankings cannot be challenged anymore on a moral basis then taking yout daughters cellphone away for a week. Understand?

I don't understand. One of the differences (the one in question, anyway) between spanking and not-spanking methods as forms of punishment is the use of violence. Why is that not enough of a difference?

Sir Crocodile
18th March 2008, 11:00 PM
Regardless of how severe the bruises might be, it is still physically violent. It causes pain. And why aren't husbands obliged to discipline their wives if you think parents are obliged to discipline their children? Both are very close to each other, in the same family, required to support each other. What if your spouse made a significant financial error? What if they were cheating on you? What if they made a mistake that could have put their wellbeing in danger? Should you be allowed to smack them because what they did was "bad behavior" and you want to make sure they never to do it again? What is the difference between hitting your children for doing wrong and hitting anybody else for doing wrong? You keep on going "duh" and "so and so isn't obliged to punish so and so" and yet you have still failed to answer that question thoroughly.
Spouses are past the point of development. Children are different. They need to be disciplined at an early age when they are still impressionable. The world, no matter what you want children to think, is not sugarcoated. If they do something wrong a light tap will set them straight.

I wholeheartedly disagree with child abuse, but spanking is not child abuse.

Profesco
18th March 2008, 11:01 PM
If they do something wrong a light tap will set them straight.

That's ludicrous. Explain yourself, please.

Ethan
18th March 2008, 11:11 PM
But, spanking and other forms of corporal punishment physically harms the body. In my opinion, you have more right over your body than your possessions. The body is a very fragile thing, and violence towards it should be avoided, even if the harm is directed at less, er, delicate body parts, such as the buttocks. By forcing violence upon someone, you are taking from them the freedom of their own body. And that's why I think corporal punishments are bad.

Pain is not physical harm of the body, it is a indicator telling you to avoid whatever your doing to prevent physical harm. Leaving a bruise or a scar on your child is going beyond pain and leaving visible physical damage on the body where it has to repair itself. That is what we call abuse. As far as freedom goes, we sacrifice it to get positive results everyday. As to what is the better trade off, is a matter of personal opinion.




I don't understand. One of the differences (the one in question, anyway) between spanking and not-spanking methods as forms of punishment is the use of violence. Why is that not enough of a difference?

All violence in any situation is wrong, always??????

Profesco
18th March 2008, 11:15 PM
All violence in any situation is wrong, always??????

Good try. I'm not about to be set up! We're talking about modifying a child's behavior. That's our window of relevance.

Ethan
18th March 2008, 11:20 PM
Good try. I'm not about to be set up! We're talking about modifying a child's behavior. That's our window of relevance.


First off I would like to apologise. I've been coming off somewhat arrogant in my recent debates, and part of it is because I've been in a little bit of a pessimistic mood. So if I ever come off high and mighty, please feel free to put me in my place.

Okay, my point is Profesco you said "violence" in the context that spankings are immoral for the very reason it is a form of violence. So I would logically need to know why you think this. Not that I'm trying to trap you, but it's nice to see your on your toes. :D

Profesco
18th March 2008, 11:26 PM
First off I would like to apologise. I've been coming off somewhat arrogant in my recent debates, and part of it is because I've been in a little bit of a pessimistic mood. So if I ever come off high and mighty, please feel free to put me in my place.

:) I've noticed. I also see you've got a new job. You must have a decent load on your hands right now.


Okay, my point is Profesco you said "violence" in the context that spankings are immoral for the very reason it is a form of violence. So I would logically need to know why you think this. Not that I'm trying to trap you, but it's nice to see your on your toes.

Well, you yourself have equated spanking results with other punishment methods a couple of times. What I'm thinking is that if these forms of punishment are on equal footing, then the addition of a violent action is unecessary.

GentleArtillery
18th March 2008, 11:29 PM
Pain is not physical harm of the body, it is a indicator telling you to avoid whatever your doing to prevent physical harm. Leaving a bruise or a scar on your child is going beyond pain and leaving visible physical damage on the body where it has to repair itself. That is what we call abuse. As far as freedom goes, we sacrifice it to get positive results everyday. As to what is the better trade off, is a matter of personal opinion.

Though, it's still pain, and I don't think people should enforce pain onto others.
Who am I to "sacrifice" someone else's freedom of his/her own body, when there are other, easily available options? It's not my possession in the first place.


All violence in any situation is wrong, always??????

Yay! Violence is always wrong, in any situation. But in certain situations, it's a necessary evil (but still wrong).
We should avoid violence if there are options that are easily available. When it comes to spanking, there are certainly other easily available options.

Poliwag2
18th March 2008, 11:30 PM
Please justify these responses, then:

1. Is it morally apt? yes
2. Does it teach children? yes
3. Is it respectable as a form of behavior modification? yes

Because they are my... beliefs?

1. yes, you're not causing physical harm, and a supportive family environment minimizes the potential of psychological harm
2. yes, you hit your kid and he knows he was wrong
3. yes, you influence behaviour without long term damage

What were you hoping for?

I'm not going to debate this, because it is not objective. You will reply with something subjective, causing me to reply with something equally subjective and a few pages down the line, we agree to disgaree.

Ethan
19th March 2008, 1:14 AM
Well, you yourself have equated spanking results with other punishment methods a couple of times. What I'm thinking is that if these forms of punishment are on equal footing, then the addition of a violent action is unecessary.

0_o? Spanking in itself would be a form of violent action, so in addition to what? I don't think I'm reading you quite correctly here.


Though, it's still pain, and I don't think people should enforce pain onto others.
Who am I to "sacrifice" someone else's freedom of his/her own body, when there are other, easily available options? It's not my possession in the first place.

Okay, let me give you a situation. You are driving along a busy highway, and your child is in the front or back seat. The child is being overly obnoxious, he doesn't have his seatbelt on, he's starting to distract your driving. You tell him why he needs to behave. He presses on. You threaten to take away his toys for a week. He presses on. You threaten to take TV away, he presses on. You've already explained what you want and why you want it, and you've punished him in a non-contact way by taking his priveleges. What else is there to do to have the child behave, to protect you and your child, and get your focus back on the road?

Profesco
19th March 2008, 2:20 AM
What were you hoping for?

I'm not going to debate this, because it is not objective. You will reply with something subjective, causing me to reply with something equally subjective and a few pages down the line, we agree to disgaree.

Well, Poliwag2, I don't quite know what to say. This is the debate forum, after all. I guess I won't try and respond then. Thanks for your input anyway.


0_o? Spanking in itself would be a form of violent action, so in addition to what? I don't think I'm reading you quite correctly here.

That's what I want to know!!! You just said spanking in itself is a form of violent action. Since you're arguing for spankings, then you must advocate some discipline that goes along with it. If these two things are the case, then the discipline is the functional part, and the spanking is just added violence.

Dark SpOOn Bender
19th March 2008, 4:58 AM
Babylon, I really have no idea why you are becoming so nasty about this topic =/ I was merely explaining my opinion and asking you questions that I do not believe you have answered thoroughly enough and you seem to take it personally for some reason. I am not going to respond to your posts any longer if you continue to insult me by calling me repetitive and ignorant just because I am not taking your side. Yeesh.

Ethan
19th March 2008, 5:32 AM
Babylon, I really have no idea why you are becoming so nasty about this topic =/ I was merely explaining my opinion and asking you questions that I do not believe you have answered thoroughly enough and you seem to take it personally for some reason. I am not going to respond to your posts any longer if you continue to insult me by calling me repetitive and ignorant just because I am not taking your side. Yeesh.


I made a formal apology above. Secondly, I never insulted you personally. I just answered aggressivley because I saw the statement as an aggressive claim. I did not mean to personally attack you, and I apologise if my post was interpreted as such. I was responding with what I consider "tit for tat" debating. Also calling you repetitive is not an insult, nor did I even say you were ignorant. I said making blanket statements is ignorant.

Here is the apology above. I've been a little arrogant latley mainly because my attitude and mindset aren't quite what I want them to be right now. So yes, I'm stepping off the horse now.


First off I would like to apologise. I've been coming off somewhat arrogant in my recent debates, and part of it is because I've been in a little bit of a pessimistic mood. So if I ever come off high and mighty, please feel free to put me in my place.



That's what I want to know!!! You just said spanking in itself is a form of violent action. Since you're arguing for spankings, then you must advocate some discipline that goes along with it. If these two things are the case, then the discipline is the functional part, and the spanking is just added violence.

Okay, now I'm really getting thrown off. How can one do without the other?

Nidogod
19th March 2008, 6:49 AM
Meh, I got smacked around as a kid and it taught me how to behave and kept me in line. I know lots of other kids whose parents refuse to touch them and the kids walk all over their parents and basically own the house. At the same time my girlfriend was never punished and she was a sweety as a little kid. My uncle got the crap beaten out of him (my grandma has shown me the broken wooden spoons that are left over) and it never stopped him. I think it mostly comes down to the kid. If they are really going to bad or good, their punishments or lack thereof won't sway them much.

kaijusasuke
19th March 2008, 6:15 PM
... I happen to like spanking.

Profesco
19th March 2008, 6:52 PM
Okay, now I'm really getting thrown off. How can one do without the other?

What? Well... maybe you've gotten some lines crossed somewhere?

If spanking in itself is a form of violent action, then it must come with some disciplinary technique when used as a punishment.

Now, we know that it is possible to raise a perfectly decent child without spanking them- negative punishment is a spank-less and effective alternative, for example.

If spanking is a violent add-on to nonviolent discipline, only functioning as a form of violence, then there is no moral or educable defense of its use.

*bows*

Ethan
19th March 2008, 9:42 PM
If spanking in itself is a form of violent action, then it must come with some disciplinary technique when used as a punishment.

Oh I get you. As I said before not all punishment work the same in all situations. Secondly why can't a violent action in itself be a form of discipline?


Now, we know that it is possible to raise a perfectly decent child without spanking them- negative punishment is a spank-less and effective alternative, for example.

In every situation? For every child?


If spanking is a violent add-on to nonviolent discipline, only functioning as a form of violence, then there is no moral or educable defense of its use.

Well there ya go.



*bows*

Sir Crocodile
20th March 2008, 12:58 AM
That's ludicrous. Explain yourself, please.
It's not ludicrous at all. It's common sense. If they do something wrong, they are punished with a swift spanking and know that there are consequences for their actions.

Pokoton Returns
20th March 2008, 1:03 AM
Is it morally apt? Maybe not.....:I
Does it teach children? It teaches fear and hate!
Is it respectable as a form of behavior modification?Never!!!!!! It is evil!:I

Dark SpOOn Bender
20th March 2008, 1:06 AM
It's not ludicrous at all. It's common sense. If they do something wrong, they are punished with a swift spanking and know that there are consequences for their actions.

A spanking does not inform the offending child of the direct consequences of their actions. It tells them the consequence is a spanking and not that they can get hit by a car when running into the street for example.
And if somebody responds with "well the parent can spank the kid them tell them what they did wrong," then what is the purpose of the spanking if you could have informed them by words anyway?

Profesco
20th March 2008, 1:09 AM
As I said before not all punishment work the same in all situations.
And as I said before, accounts of successful spanking are tempered by accounts of unsuccessful spanking.


Secondly why can't a violent action in itself be a form of discipline?
Violence for the sake of violence is pretty questionable, Babylon. How is that any acceptable way to teach children? No offense, but it sounds kind of cruel...


In every situation? For every child?
There are many alternative options. I do in fact support the idea that all children capable of benefitting from behavior modification can achieve it through a nonviolent disciplinary technique.


Well there ya go.
*bows*
Hahaha, calm down, bud.

You say yourself that spanking in itself is a form of violence. Then, when looking at only the act of spanking itself, it is just violence. Violence alone is not discipline- check any dictionary, I bet their definitions will be different. Then if spanking is used as discipline, there must be something else that makes the discipline part, since only spanking would just be violence.

Now you're in the position of justifying, by definition, unecessary violence.

I'm kind of excited.

Ethan
20th March 2008, 1:19 AM
And as I said before, accounts of successful spanking are tempered by accounts of unsuccessful spanking.

Oh where, oh where could my little source be? Oh where, oh where could it be? With it's articles typed well, and it's credibility reliable, oh where, oh where could it be? (Repeat chorus)



Violence for the sake of violence is pretty questionable, Babylon. How is that any acceptable way to teach children? No offense, but it sounds kind of cruel...

What I said doesn't mean that it was simply for the sake of violence.



There are many alternative options. I do in fact support the idea that all children capable of benefitting from behavior modification can achieve it through a nonviolent disciplinary technique.

Did you see my situation above?



Hahaha, calm down, bud.

Quit stealing my lingo bud. XD


You say yourself that spanking in itself is a form of violence. Then, when looking at only the act of spanking itself, it is just violence. Violence alone is not discipline- check any dictionary, I bet their definitions will be different. Then if spanking is used as discipline, there must be something else that makes the discipline part, since only spanking would just be violence.

The "discipline part" would be the motive. That coupled with spanking does not eqaul unecessary violence.


Now you're in the position of justifying, by definition, unecessary violence.

Based on your argument above that is, which is all but infallible. ;)


I'm kind of excited.

I actually admit it would be interesting to see someone else apply my amazing debate tactics, sharp intellect, and wit to my own posts. :p,;)

Profesco
20th March 2008, 5:28 AM
Did you see my situation above?

Remind me which one?


Quit stealing my lingo bud. XD

"XD" :D


The "discipline part" would be the motive. That coupled with spanking does not eqaul unecessary violence.

Of course it does. You already have the discipline down. You're just adding some solitary spankings. Those spankings are thus added violence.


Based on your argument above that is, which is all but infallible.
Then don your logic gloves and get to work. ;)


I actually admit it would be interesting to see someone else apply my amazing debate tactics, sharp intellect, and wit to my own posts.

You're making me laugh, ya know? Are you having as much fun as I am?

Ethan
20th March 2008, 1:44 PM
Remind me which one?


Okay, let me give you a situation. You are driving along a busy highway, and your child is in the front or back seat. The child is being overly obnoxious, he doesn't have his seatbelt on, he's starting to distract your driving. You tell him why he needs to behave. He presses on. You threaten to take away his toys for a week. He presses on. You threaten to take TV away, he presses on. You've already explained what you want and why you want it, and you've punished him in a non-contact way by taking his priveleges. What else is there to do to have the child behave, to protect you and your child, and get your focus back on the road?



"XD" :D

;_;




Of course it does. You already have the discipline down. You're just adding some solitary spankings. Those spankings are thus added violence.

What discipline do I have down then? Further more is it sufficient?



Then don your logic gloves and get to work. ;)

*swiped time card* IMMA READY.




You're making me laugh, ya know? Are you having as much fun as I am?

Yes. :D

Profesco
20th March 2008, 5:41 PM
Okay, let me give you a situation. You are driving along a busy highway, and your child is in the front or back seat. The child is being overly obnoxious, he doesn't have his seatbelt on, he's starting to distract your driving. You tell him why he needs to behave. He presses on. You threaten to take away his toys for a week. He presses on. You threaten to take TV away, he presses on. You've already explained what you want and why you want it, and you've punished him in a non-contact way by taking his priveleges. What else is there to do to have the child behave, to protect you and your child, and get your focus back on the road?

Well for one, you immediately pull off to the curb and hook his seatbelt! If you're intent on placating the child while on the highway, you distract his tantrum with singing, or a car game, or asking him what kinds of things he would like to do- food to eat, games to play, people to visit, etc. The last thing you want to do is slap the child. In this scenario, not only will it be more an expression of anger and frustration (which the child will recognize), but it will definitely exacerbate the problem. You would then have a child with all the problems you gave, plus he would be hurt, angry, and now screaming and crying!


What discipline do I have down then? Further more is it sufficient?
I don't know which disciplinary lesson you're teaching. The point is, if spanking by itself is just a form of violence, then something else must make up the discipline part. Second, whether it's sufficient is beside the point at this moment. Why don't you try explaining how violence by itself makes an acceptable disciplinary technique?


*swiped time card* IMMA READY.
*looks at clock* IMMA WAITIN'.


Yes. :D
Nice. :D

PsychedelicJellyfish
20th March 2008, 6:09 PM
I generally don't agree with spanking or hitting children at all. I think it's alright if the child is throwing a fit that's potentially dangerous.

The most stupid reason for hitting a child is that they won't stop crying. Like hurting them is going to help.

Ethan
20th March 2008, 9:47 PM
Well for one, you immediately pull off to the curb and hook his seatbelt! If you're intent on placating the child while on the highway, you distract his tantrum with singing, or a car game, or asking him what kinds of things he would like to do- food to eat, games to play, people to visit, etc. The last thing you want to do is slap the child. In this scenario, not only will it be more an expression of anger and frustration (which the child will recognize), but it will definitely exacerbate the problem. You would then have a child with all the problems you gave, plus he would be hurt, angry, and now screaming and crying!


The child is angry and hyper, he doesn't give a damn about what you want or what you want to do, the last thing he wants to do is play games or sing. Second what's keeping the child from taking the seatbelt back off again??? Thirdly you don't know how the child will react.


I don't know which disciplinary lesson you're teaching. The point is, if spanking by itself is just a form of violence, then something else must make up the discipline part. Second, whether it's sufficient is beside the point at this moment. Why don't you try explaining how violence by itself makes an acceptable disciplinary technique?

Again why can't violence be discipline in itself as well? It does't need to be violence for the sake of violence, and it's not either. If it was violence for the sake of violence, the parent would spank their child for no reason at all, not to mention unprovoked. Why is suffience besides the point? That's the entire point of discipline in the first place. Results. You don't discipline someone that's not going to show improvement. Also I don't have to answer that question, if the question is ill-founded in the first place.



*looks at clock* IMMA WAITIN'.

*Takes money from register.*

Profesco
21st March 2008, 3:37 AM
The child is angry and hyper, he doesn't give a damn about what you want or what you want to do, the last thing he wants to do is play games or sing. Second what's keeping the child from taking the seatbelt back off again??? Thirdly you don't know how the child will react.

I gave you a reasonable, effective way to handle your situation. Second, I'm sure there are seatbelt apparata for children prone to clicking out, if it should become that serious. Third, the reaction to getting slapped when you're already throwing a fit is next thing to definite. Fourth, if you expect that spanking is the only logical solution to your situation, then you are being quite silly.


Again why can't violence be discipline in itself as well?



Violence:
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

Discipline:
1. training to act in accordance with rules; drill: military discipline.
2. activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill; training: A daily stint at the typewriter is excellent discipline for a writer.
3. punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.
4. the rigor or training effect of experience, adversity, etc.: the harsh discipline of poverty.
5. behavior in accord with rules of conduct; behavior and order maintained by training and control: good discipline in an army.


If you keep in mind that we're arguing violence in itself here, then there is nowhere that their definitions overlap.


Why is suffience besides the point?
It was beside the point in my response because we were arguing violence versus discipline, as a difference- not whether whichever kind of discipline being used at the moment was effective or not.


That's the entire point of discipline in the first place. Results.

So, the end justifies the means, huh?


You don't discipline someone that's not going to show improvement.

So you just plain old don't try to teach proper behavior? Oh, and I thought we can't predict the child's reaction?


Also I don't have to answer that question, if the question is ill-founded in the first place.

Ill-founded? You're posing violence in itself as a disciplinary technique. The American Constitution was less well-founded than the question I asked you. Explain your proposition. Please. I'm begging.


*Takes money from register.*

*fires Babylon*

Ethan
22nd March 2008, 3:37 AM
I gave you a reasonable, effective way to handle your situation. Second, I'm sure there are seatbelt apparata for children prone to clicking out, if it should become that serious. Third, the reaction to getting slapped when you're already throwing a fit is next thing to definite. Fourth, if you expect that spanking is the only logical solution to your situation, then you are being quite silly.


It's the first time it's happened. Your on the highway, you can't just pullover and buy the seatbelt apparata. Who says it's definite? My sisters throw fits all the time, when my mother(step) threatens a spanking, they shutup real fast. Even when they are spanked, they don't keep on. We can't speak in terms of hypotheticals Profesco(Well we are right now, but I'm talking about actual cases where you've seen disciplinary acts.) That last sentence is pretty dry I might add.



If you keep in mind that we're arguing violence in itself here, then there is nowhere that their definitions overlap.

Oh really?


punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.

Spanking seems mesh with this quite nicley actually.



1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

I would like to comment here. Spanking is not intense, it's not to die by violence, it is not unjust(subjective I know, spare me.), some of these definitions don't even fit spankings. Anyway my point is that violence can mesh with the definition of descipline that I quoted from you source. Violence it itself CAN be a form of discipline depending on how you so use it, as I mentioned before.



It was beside the point in my response because we were arguing violence versus discipline, as a difference- not whether whichever kind of discipline being used at the moment was effective or not.

Gotcha.




So, the end justifies the means, huh?

...sure.




So you just plain old don't try to teach proper behavior? Oh, and I thought we can't predict the child's reaction?

When did I say we could? And no we can't predict a childs reaction but a parent can!




Ill-founded? You're posing violence in itself as a disciplinary technique. The American Constitution was less well-founded than the question I asked you. Explain your proposition. Please. I'm begging.

So the entire debate above, I haven't been explaining? It's not a question of explaining, because there is really not much to explain, that or I'm not really sure what your asking. Child does act. parent exhausts non physical disciplinary techniques, they don't work, then parent tries a spanking and it works. I'm not saying that it will work now, but if it is sufficient then I think it's use is reasonable so long as it does not interfere with the growth of the child.



*fires Babylon*

Profesco
22nd March 2008, 4:06 AM
It's the first time it's happened. Your on the highway, you can't just pullover and buy the seatbelt apparata.
*sighs* Are you going to keep adding details until I concede and say, "Fine, spanking will be okay for this?"


We can't speak in terms of hypotheticals Profesco(Well we are right now, but I'm talking about actual cases where you've seen disciplinary acts.)
Wait- then if you pose a hypothetical situation, but I can't solve it with a hypothetical response, what exactly do you want me to do? One of us must have a screw loose...


My sisters throw fits all the time, when my mother(step) threatens a spanking, they shutup real fast. Even when they are spanked, they don't keep on.

Okay. My sisters throw fits at least twice a day. Real scream and stomp tantrums. My mom threatens and uses spankings, but that only causes them to cry more. Now what?


That last sentence is pretty dry I might add.What's wrong with it? I fail to see how spanking appears to be a fitting solution to your situation.


Spanking seems mesh with this quite nicley actually.
How? It certainly isn't a correction of anything. And you aren't trained to get spanks.


Anyway my point is that violence can mesh with the definition of descipline that I quoted from you source. Violence it itself CAN be a form of discipline depending on how you so use it, as I mentioned before.
Great. How?


...sure.
Then why not just tie the kids hands behind his back to stop him from hitting or stealing? Result achieved, right? I'm going to admit to being surprised that you're willing to defend the aphorism "the end justifies the means." Do you really think that, or you just want to win this debate?


When did I say we could? And no we can't predict a childs reaction but a parent can!

Thirdly you don't know how the child will react.

Tell me how to answer your hypothetical question if 1) I can't put the answer in hypothetical too, and 2) when I do predict a response to the parent's actions, you say I can't predict one. Maybe I'm missing something?


So the entire debate above, I haven't been explaining? It's not a question of explaining, because there is really not much to explain, that or I'm not really sure what your asking. Child does act. parent exhausts non physical disciplinary techniques, they don't work, then parent tries a spanking and it works. I'm not saying that it will work now, but if it is sufficient then I think it's use is reasonable so long as it does not interfere with the growth of the child.

Well, you've repeated now a few times that spanking can be used as discipline. I've come up with plenty of explanations of how it's different,and why it doesn't perform the same as a disciplinary technique. You're not explaining how it is proper discipline.


Child does act. parent exhausts non physical disciplinary techniques, they don't work, then parent tries a spanking and it works.

Not only the above, but this isn't a great representative example. Where's the objective premise for this situation? And what about being unable to use hypotheticals?

Ethan
22nd March 2008, 7:48 PM
*sighs* Are you going to keep adding details until I concede and say, "Fine, spanking will be okay for this?"

Yes. If spanking is immoral then it is immoral. There wouldn't be exceptions. We are moral objectivists right Profesco? :D



Wait- then if you pose a hypothetical situation, but I can't solve it with a hypothetical response, what exactly do you want me to do? One of us must have a screw loose...

No. I'm saying that some real situations would greatly help.




Okay. My sisters throw fits at least twice a day. Real scream and stomp tantrums. My mom threatens and uses spankings, but that only causes them to cry more. Now what?

Threatens or does?


What's wrong with it? I fail to see how spanking appears to be a fitting solution to your situation.

Then that's your problem. ;D



How? It certainly isn't a correction of anything. And you aren't trained to get spanks.

Why the hell not?



Great. How?

The defintion you gave was to correct behavior. Child performs certian behavior. Parent spanks. Child doesn not do behavior any longer. Seems pretty corrective to me.



Then why not just tie the kids hands behind his back to stop him from hitting or stealing? Result achieved, right? I'm going to admit to being surprised that you're willing to defend the aphorism "the end justifies the means." Do you really think that, or you just want to win this debate?

I didn't really get what you were asking. Hence the elipses.




Tell me how to answer your hypothetical question if 1) I can't put the answer in hypothetical too, and 2) when I do predict a response to the parent's actions, you say I can't predict one. Maybe I'm missing something?


I'm saying that it goes both ways, and works differently for every child. Yes you can make a prediction, I'm just pointing out that predictions are fallible.



Well, you've repeated now a few times that spanking can be used as discipline. I've come up with plenty of explanations of how it's different,and why it doesn't perform the same as a disciplinary technique. You're not explaining how it is proper discipline.

See above.




Not only the above, but this isn't a great representative example. Where's the objective premise for this situation? And what about being unable to use hypotheticals?

I made notice from the start that you could use hypotheticals. Let's actually looks at what I said please.



We can't speak in terms of hypotheticals Profesco(Well we are right now, but I'm talking about actual cases where you've seen disciplinary acts.)

Horoika1
27th March 2008, 7:10 PM
Spanking, in a way, is effective. It keeps childeren under control, but at the cost of possible trauma developments.

Punishment, as in taking away privaleges, are the best approach. They are more releated to the form of government. Do something bad, you go to jail. The only downside to it is that then the childeren just get used to it. They think "oh well, just wait for few more days/weeks/months and I can do that again". Those are only the smart ones or the really misbehaved kind. The average child learns, but the smart ones think a short time and the really misbehaved just don't care at all.

Profesco
29th March 2008, 12:18 AM
Yes. If spanking is immoral then it is immoral. There wouldn't be exceptions. We are moral objectivists right Profesco?

No kidding. There's nothing that makes me think using a spanking in this situation will be any better than a nonspanking alternative. You've given me no reason to think that yet.


No. I'm saying that some real situations would greatly help

Then are we done with your situation?


Threatens or does?

Like most real-life spanking situations, it starts with the serious threat. If that proves futile, my siblings get a swift spank to the rear or thigh. What's it like at your place?


Then that's your problem. ;D

Oh, you wiseacre! Aren't you trying to convince me that a spanking would handle the problem?


Why the hell not?

A spank is used to stop a behavior in a short space of time. You keep expounding fast-paced dangers and high-risk emergencies. Spanking (if you're arguing that it's discipline at all) isn't a form of corrective discipline- it would be described as a form of preventative measure.


The defintion you gave was to correct behavior. Child performs certian behavior. Parent spanks. Child doesn not do behavior any longer. Seems pretty corrective to me.

See above.


I didn't really get what you were asking. Hence the elipses.

Sorry. Be careful! ;)


I'm saying that it goes both ways, and works differently for every child. Yes you can make a prediction, I'm just pointing out that predictions are fallible.

Then your attempted prediction that a spank would turn out differently is hereby useless. Ta-dah!


I made notice from the start that you could use hypotheticals. Let's actually looks at what I said please. See above.

This?


Child performs certian behavior. Parent spanks. Child doesn not do behavior any longer

If this is supposed to be any solid defense of spanking, then I counter with this: Child performs certain behavior. Parent spanks. Child continues to perform behavior, and also develops resentment and violence issues.

Step it up, Babylon. :)