Why do people beat their kids...

On May 26 2013 18:06 salle wrote:
Best of luck in beating depression.
To answer your question of why parents beat their kids, it's because pain is a really really good mnemonic. So if you beat your child you make sure they remember, this is net beneficial when the lesson they need to learn is vital to their health or survival. But as parents do it because they were themselves beaten as kids, then they beat their kids for lots of not so super important reasons and it becomes a bad spiral where parents pretty much abuse their kids for minor things.

On May 26 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:

When I studied psychology, the general consensus seemed to be that punishment is actually a very ineffective way of producing change, compared to positive and negative reinforcement.

Doing something bad to someone to teach them to not do bad things is just a really dumb concept, and completely unnecessary when it comes to children.

EDIT: Obviously, punishment is still needed to reduce unwanted behavior, but it's far more effective to reinforce good behavior and then only rely on light punishment.

On May 26 2013 22:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the reason why is the belief that they themselves have turned out okay. and they themselves were beaten when they were kids. personally I don't think they turned out okay though because they hit children.

anyway;

hitting your children is a somewhat effective way of teaching your kids not to do something. but it also teaches two other highly important lessons; 1: that the most important is to not get caught doing something and 2: that if someone else does something you disagree with, it's right to hit them. if you were only aiming to teach someone obedience and nothing else, hitting them would be one of the best ways to accomplish this, but it's normally employed "pedagogically" by people whose understanding of children's learning is very very lacking.

hopefully your bad experiences with being hit will enable you to abandon the circle of violence and not hit your own children if you end up having them. and yea, I think you just need to move out and establish yourself, and frankly, don't reach out to them unless they reach out to you. now we're kind of going into an area where I can't give any more generic advice because I don't know enough details about your personality or life experience so far for anything I say to be valid though. but it generally seems like people who hate their parents for any prolonged period of time extending past their teenage years, honestly never end up reconciling because their parents are past the point where they change. thus normally you just have to move on and stop expecting anything from them for you to be able to achieve contentness/happiness on your own.

On May 26 2013 23:29 rabidch wrote:
because not every parent is a good parent

On May 26 2013 23:57 Juggernaut477 wrote:



This.

If more parents would hit their kids form time to time we would not have such fucked up youth these days.

On May 27 2013 00:09 micronesia wrote:

I have seen problems with discipline in children, but I don't think parents who act like the OP's parents are the solution.

I'm okay with giving a 3 year old a smack on the behind if he tries to run out into the street, or do other equally dangerous things. Once the child is old enough to be reasoned with however hitting is not the solution.

beat the crap out of their kids. My childhood was not an exception; I remember getting slapped so hard I lost hearing in my left ear for 2 days

On May 27 2013 02:00 Chairman Ray wrote:
I had a very similar upbringing when I was a child. I did not turn out okay. There's a clear difference between beating your child and traditionalist Chinese parents. I've seen white parents beat their kids before. They give them a light smack on the bum to show them their displeasure, but it doesn't cause pain or any damage. Whether or not this a good parenting technique is debatable but certainly has its merits. My parents, just like the OPs, were completely different. I have suffered blows all over the body including the head, and got a lot of bruises as well. I have been beaten with objects, in public, and in front of guests too. When I don't get beaten, I get verbally abused. Obviously this led to a wealth of psychological issues in my youth and they still persist today. Eventually I managed to cope with it. I accepted that my parents were not on my side, but rather another obstacle I have to overcome. For me I had to perform well in school and defend against my parents while in my poor mental state while most other kids only had to do well in school and with the aid of their parents. However I realized that I didn't have it bad. I live in a first world country with a roof over my head and 3 meals a day. My parents actually provide pretty well for me. I didn't have to go to war unlike most young men in our history. The verbal abuse my parents gave me were just words and will only affect me if I take it to heart. Physical pain is just pain and nothing more. This had allowed me to tough it out and do what I want to do.

So my advice to the OP is just to do whatever you can to get your life on track the way you want it. Finish your engineering degree and don't let your upbringing lull you into thinking you are disadvantaged in any way. You won't be able to get your childhood back but you can still make your future into what you want it to be. When you succeed, your parents will still probably take credit for it, but that can't really be helped.

On May 27 2013 01:18 wanghis wrote:
How can kidz know what's right or wrong if they don't have physical and emotional trauma to scare them away?

On May 27 2013 01:18 wanghis wrote:
How can kidz know what's right or wrong if they don't have physical and emotional trauma to scare them away?

On May 26 2013 19:41 salle wrote:

I completely agree, it's a very very bad way to try and teach someone something. Positive reinforcement is much better, but also much harder for a lot of people to do for whatever reason. However it is a form of negative reinforcement... (do wrong, get pain).

A 1996 literature review by Robert Larzelere suggested that, in some circumstances, corporal punishment of children can increase short-term compliance with parental commands. Examples of such circumstances noted by Larzelere are that no implements should be used, that the child is between ages 2 and 6, that the punishment be carried out in private, and that it should occur less than once per week. However, comparisons in the same study with alternative punishments such as one-minute time-outs did not establish that corporal punishment was more effective. This paper also did not measure long term outcomes.[54]
Diana Baumrind has studied the effects of different parenting styles[55][56] and has expressed the opinion that mild spanking with the empty, open hand, in the context of an authoritative (not authoritarian) parenting style, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect, if one is careful to control for other variables such as socioeconomic status. She observes that previous studies demonstrating a correlation between corporal punishment and bad outcomes failed to control for these variables.[57] She has also cautioned that neither the pro-spanking nor anti-spanking studies is truly scientific, in the sense that physics or chemistry experiments are scientific, as they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, there are too many disparate factors that might influence the results, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs.[58]
A 1996 study by Straus suggested that children who receive corporal punishment are more likely to be angry as adults, use spanking as a form of discipline, approve of striking a spouse, and experience marital discord.[59] According to Cohen's 1996 study, older children who receive corporal punishment may resort to more physical aggression, substance abuse, crime and violence.[60] A 1997 study by Straus, Sugarman and Giles-Sims[61] found detrimental child outcomes of nonabusive or customary physical punishment by parents using a design that would not also tend to find detrimental outcomes of most alternative discipline responses. Its findings were criticised by Larzelere,[62] who affirmed that the new study did not contradict his earlier study, the conclusions of which were summarized by Baumrind as "a blanket injunction against spanking is not scientifically supportable".[63] Larzelere granted that frequent and severe corporal punishment carried with it an increased risk for detrimental effects, but saw no proof that an occasional swat could harm a child in the long run.[62]
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in an official policy statement[64] (reaffirmed in 2004) states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects." The AAP recommends that parents be "encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior". In particular, the AAP believes that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". The policy statement points out, summarizing several studies, that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults."[59] Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.[60] Research published in the American Academy of Pediatrics journal Pediatrics in 2012 based on data gathered from adults in the United States which excluded subjects who had suffered abuse[65] showed an association between harsh corporal punishment by parents and increased risk of a wide range of mental illness.[66][67]
The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on corporal punishment states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment".[68] In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have both called for a complete ban on all corporal punishment, stating "We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour".[69] and that "it is never appropriate to hit or beat children".[70] The Australian Psychological Society holds that physical punishment of children should not be used as it has very limited capacity to deter unwanted behavior, does not teach alternative desirable behavior, often promotes further undesirable behaviors such as defiance and attachment to "delinquent" peer groups, and encourages an acceptance of aggression and violence as acceptable responses to conflicts and problems.[71]
Opponents of corporal punishment sometimes argue that spanking constitutes violence and is therefore by definition abusive. Some psychological research is held to indicate that corporal punishment causes the deterioration of trust bonds between parents and children. It is claimed that children subjected to corporal punishment may grow resentful, shy, insecure, or violent. Adults who report having been slapped or spanked by their parents in childhood have been found to experience elevated rates of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems as adults.[72] Some researchers believe that corporal punishment actually works against its objective (normally obedience), since children will not voluntarily obey an adult they do not trust. Elizabeth Gershoff, in a 2002 meta-analytic study that combined 60 years of research on corporal punishment, found that the only positive outcome of corporal punishment was immediate compliance; however, corporal punishment was associated with less long-term compliance.[73] Corporal punishment was linked with nine other negative outcomes, including increased rates of aggression, delinquency, mental health problems, problems in relationships with their parents, and likelihood of being physically abused.
Opponents claim that much child abuse begins with spanking: a parent accustomed to using corporal punishment may, on this view, find it all too easy, when frustrated, to step over the line into physical abuse. One study found that 40% of 111 mothers were worried that they could possibly hurt their children.[74] It is argued that frustrated parents turn to spanking when attempting to discipline their child, and then get carried away (given the arguable continuum between spanking and hitting). This "continuum" argument also raises the question of whether a spank can be "too hard" and how (if at all) this can be defined in practical terms. This in turn leads to the question whether parents who spank their children "too hard" are crossing the line and beginning to abuse them.
Opponents also argue that a problem with the use of corporal punishment is that, if punishments are to maintain their efficacy, the amount of force required may have to be increased over successive punishments. This has been claimed by the American Academy of Pediatrics,[64] which has asserted: "The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse". Additionally, the Academy noted that: "Parents who spank their children are more likely to use other unacceptable forms of corporal punishment."[75]
The American Academy of Pediatrics also believes that corporal punishment polarizes the parent-child relationship, reducing the amount of spontaneous cooperation on the part of the child. The AAP policy statement says "...reliance on spanking as a discipline approach makes other discipline strategies less effective to use".[64]
A meta-analysis of 88 research studies testifies to many long and short-term dangers of corporal punishment and concludes that corporal punishment of children is “associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health.”[73] A 2003 review of available research into parental punishment concluded that "strong evidence exists that the use of physical punishment has a number of inherent risks regarding the physical and mental health and well-being of children".[76]
In a 2006 Study on Violence against Children the Independent Expert for the Secretary-General to the General Assembly writes: “Children testify to the hurt – not only physical, but ‘the hurt inside’.”[77] A 2006 retrospective report study in New Zealand showed that physical punishment of children was quite common in the 1970s and 80s, with 80% of the sample reporting some kind of corporal punishment from parents at some time during childhood. Among this sample, 29% reported being hit with an empty hand, 45% with an object, and 6% were subjected to serious physical abuse. The study noted that abusive physical punishment tended to be given by fathers and often involved striking the child's head or torso instead of the buttocks or limbs.[78]
A 2008 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine[79] found that mothers who reported spanking their children were more likely (6% vs 2%) to also report using forms of punishment considered abusive to the researchers "such as beating, burning, kicking, hitting with an object somewhere other than the buttocks, or shaking a child less than 2 years old" than mothers who did not report spanking, and increases in the frequency of spanking were statistically correlated with increased odds of abuse.[80]
There is also MRI evidence that children treated with harsh corporal punishment have reduced gray matter when aged 18–25 in their prefrontal lobe. Such research also found that these reductions in gray matter linked to reduced performance IQ on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.[81]

On May 27 2013 03:38 farvacola wrote:

So above we have folks arguing that children are essentially curious and willing to test limits, and now you are suggesting that they are borderline perfectly trusting. The truth is obviously somewhere in between, and therein lies the reason that many parents rely on nominatively harsher forms of encouragement, particularly when their child's health is at risk.

On May 27 2013 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
but kids are always going to test limits and explore. you are advocating punishment of human nature. in your example, if the kid puts his finger into the socket, that's gonna teach him to listen to you without having the added benefit of the child thinking violence is a proper way to deal with people not obeying him.

On May 27 2013 04:21 farvacola wrote:

Violence should always be the last resort, and I think that the only situation in which it can be justified is in regards to the 3-6 age range and a specific tendency for a child to partake in a behavior that is particularly dangerous, like turning on the oven, touching electrical sockets, or getting into medications. The vast, vast majority of children respond better to verbal and non violent punishments, but there will always be cases of kids who simply will not listen to anything other than mild corporeal punishment.

On May 28 2013 01:25 Burrfoot wrote:
I'm Chinese, I was beat, I feared my dad, and I will beat my kid if I feel the punishment is justified. :-)

On May 27 2013 03:49 salle wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

On May 28 2013 05:59 Xenocide_Knight wrote:




So how many of you were actually beat as children? Because these are all ridiculously broad statements that can be easily challenged. For instance, Zoler's quote especially is comically ignorant and close-minded. Or Liquid Drone's post somehow comes to the conclusion that "because a child was hit, therefore the child learned that hitting others is ok".

On May 28 2013 05:59 Xenocide_Knight wrote:




So how many of you were actually beat as children? Because these are all ridiculously broad statements that can be easily challenged. For instance, Zoler's quote especially is comically ignorant and close-minded. Or Liquid Drone's post somehow comes to the conclusion that "because a child was hit, therefore the child learned that hitting others is ok".

On May 28 2013 06:09 lisward wrote:

Its a fact that physical abuse happens in a cycle. My great grandma abused her kids, my grandma abused her kids, my mom abused her kids (My sister and I). If you need citations

On May 28 2013 06:36 Fruscainte wrote:
I seriously can't understand why every corporal punishment thread everyone on both sides treat abuse/beating/assault as synonymous with corporal punishment. Spanking a child's rear or the back of their hand isn't the same as slapping them around or hitting them with a belt for fibbing about homework or something. Of course abuse is a cycle. I feel like I need to bold that just for emphasis. Saying parents are "cowards" for spanking their child's behind or that any physical contact with your kids at all is somehow abuse and is going to scar them for life is absolutely ridiculous though. Corporal punishment has a distinct purpose for a parent. You can't put your child in a corner for every offense, you can't ground them for every offense and you can't spank them for every offense.

It all comes down to some people just have no purpose being a parent. Physical punishment overdone can lead to overly violent children continuing a cycle and children who are never physically disciplined or not disciplined really at all lead to children who don't understand the consequences of their actions. Punishment, like many things in life, is best done in a balance of the two options.

On May 28 2013 05:59 Xenocide_Knight wrote:




So how many of you were actually beat as children? Because these are all ridiculously broad statements that can be easily challenged. For instance, Zoler's quote especially is comically ignorant and close-minded. PanN's post was "All parents who hit their children are cowards" from which you have to come to the conclusion "99% of all parents in asia are cowards" and because the majority of people end up being parents, "the majority of asians are cowards". Or Liquid Drone's post somehow comes to the conclusion that "because a child was hit, therefore the child learned that hitting others is ok".

I was always hit as a child and pretty much the biggest lesson ingrained in my head was "it is under no circumstance ok for me to hit anyone else. Only parents can hit only their own children." I never saw my parents hit anyone or even anything other than me. Even my younger sister was never hit. So i learned "don't hit girls", "don't hit young children", and "as the eldest male, my punishments must be stricter as I have much greater responsibility".

A 1996 literature review by Robert Larzelere suggested that, in some circumstances, corporal punishment of children can increase short-term compliance with parental commands. Examples of such circumstances noted by Larzelere are that no implements should be used, that the child is between ages 2 and 6, that the punishment be carried out in private, and that it should occur less than once per week. However, comparisons in the same study with alternative punishments such as one-minute time-outs did not establish that corporal punishment was more effective. This paper also did not measure long term outcomes.[54]

Diana Baumrind has studied the effects of different parenting styles[55][56] and has expressed the opinion that mild spanking with the empty, open hand, in the context of an authoritative (not authoritarian) parenting style, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect, if one is careful to control for other variables such as socioeconomic status. She observes that previous studies demonstrating a correlation between corporal punishment and bad outcomes failed to control for these variables.[57] She has also cautioned that neither the pro-spanking nor anti-spanking studies is truly scientific, in the sense that physics or chemistry experiments are scientific, as they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, there are too many disparate factors that might influence the results, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs.[58]

A 1996 study by Straus suggested that children who receive corporal punishment are more likely to be angry as adults, use spanking as a form of discipline, approve of striking a spouse, and experience marital discord.[59] According to Cohen's 1996 study, older children who receive corporal punishment may resort to more physical aggression, substance abuse, crime and violence.[60] A 1997 study by Straus, Sugarman and Giles-Sims[61] found detrimental child outcomes of nonabusive or customary physical punishment by parents using a design that would not also tend to find detrimental outcomes of most alternative discipline responses. Its findings were criticised by Larzelere,[62] who affirmed that the new study did not contradict his earlier study, the conclusions of which were summarized by Baumrind as "a blanket injunction against spanking is not scientifically supportable".[63] Larzelere granted that frequent and severe corporal punishment carried with it an increased risk for detrimental effects, but saw no proof that an occasional swat could harm a child in the long run.[62]
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in an official policy statement[64] (reaffirmed in 2004) states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects." The AAP recommends that parents be "encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior". In particular, the AAP believes that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". The policy statement points out, summarizing several studies, that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults."[59] Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.[60] Research published in the American Academy of Pediatrics journal Pediatrics in 2012 based on data gathered from adults in the United States which excluded subjects who had suffered abuse[65] showed an association between harsh corporal punishment by parents and increased risk of a wide range of mental illness.[66][67]

The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on corporal punishment states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment".[68] In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have both called for a complete ban on all corporal punishment, stating "We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour".[69] and that "it is never appropriate to hit or beat children".[70] The Australian Psychological Society holds that physical punishment of children should not be used as it has very limited capacity to deter unwanted behavior, does not teach alternative desirable behavior, often promotes further undesirable behaviors such as defiance and attachment to "delinquent" peer groups, and encourages an acceptance of aggression and violence as acceptable responses to conflicts and problems.[71]

Opponents of corporal punishment sometimes argue that spanking constitutes violence and is therefore by definition abusive. Some psychological research is held to indicate that corporal punishment causes the deterioration of trust bonds between parents and children. It is claimed that children subjected to corporal punishment may grow resentful, shy, insecure, or violent. Adults who report having been slapped or spanked by their parents in childhood have been found to experience elevated rates of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems as adults.[72] Some researchers believe that corporal punishment actually works against its objective (normally obedience), since children will not voluntarily obey an adult they do not trust. Elizabeth Gershoff, in a 2002 meta-analytic study that combined 60 years of research on corporal punishment, found that the only positive outcome of corporal punishment was immediate compliance; however, corporal punishment was associated with less long-term compliance.[73] Corporal punishment was linked with nine other negative outcomes, including increased rates of aggression, delinquecy, mental health problems, problems in relationships with their parents, and likelihood of being physically abused.

Opponents claim that much child abuse begins with spanking: a parent accustomed to using corporal punishment may, on this view, find it all too easy, when frustrated, to step over the line into physical abuse. One study found that 40% of 111 mothers were worried that they could possibly hurt their children.[74] It is argued that frustrated parents turn to spanking when attempting to discipline their child, and then get carried away (given the arguable continuum between spanking and hitting). This "continuum" argument also raises the question of whether a spank can be "too hard" and how (if at all) this can be defined in practical terms. This in turn leads to the question whether parents who spank their children "too hard" are crossing the line and beginning to abuse them.
Opponents also argue that a problem with the use of corporal punishment is that, if punishments are to maintain their efficacy, the amount of force required may have to be increased over successive punishments. This has been claimed by the American Academy of Pediatrics,[64] which has asserted: "The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse". Additionally, the Academy noted that: "Parents who spank their children are more likely to use other unacceptable forms of corporal punishment."[75]

The American Academy of Pediatrics also believes that corporal punishment polarizes the parent-child relationship, reducing the amount of spontaneous cooperation on the part of the child. The AAP policy statement says "...reliance on spanking as a discipline approach makes other discipline strategies less effective to use".[64]

A meta-analysis of 88 research studies testifies to many long and short-term dangers of corporal punishment and concludes that corporal punishment of children is “associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health.”[73] A 2003 review of available research into parental punishment concluded that "strong evidence exists that the use of physical punishment has a number of inherent risks regarding the physical and mental health and well-being of children".[76]

In a 2006 Study on Violence against Children the Independent Expert for the Secretary-General to the General Assembly writes: “Children testify to the hurt – not only physical, but ‘the hurt inside’.”[77] A 2006 retrospective report study in New Zealand showed that physical punishment of children was quite common in the 1970s and 80s, with 80% of the sample reporting some kind of corporal punishment from parents at some time during childhood. Among this sample, 29% reported being hit with an empty hand, 45% with an object, and 6% were subjected to serious physical abuse. The study noted that abusive physical punishment tended to be given by fathers and often involved striking the child's head or torso instead of the buttocks or limbs.[78]

A 2008 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine[79] found that mothers who reported spanking their children were more likely (6% vs 2%) to also report using forms of punishment considered abusive to the researchers "such as beating, burning, kicking, hitting with an object somewhere other than the buttocks, or shaking a child less than 2 years old" than mothers who did not report spanking, and increases in the frequency of spanking were statistically correlated with increased odds of abuse.[80]

There is also MRI evidence that children treated with harsh corporal punishment have reduced gray matter when aged 18–25 in their prefrontal lobe. Such research also found that these reductions in gray matter linked to reduced performance IQ on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.[81]

Funny how people talk about freedom and rights for everyone but their own children.

Just accept that they are individuals

Smacking is physical abuse. If you don't agree please let me "smack" you 10 times in the face. Then we can have the discussion again... when or if you wake up.

On May 28 2013 18:13 humblegar wrote:
If your kid is in mortal danger, pick him or her up.

On May 28 2013 22:40 Fruscainte wrote:


Are you trying to imply children should have the same freedoms and rights as adults and we need to treat our children as equals and like we treat other adults? I don't know how the culture is in Norway and that might just be the way things are done over there, but I can't help but laugh at that idea.



If I somehow get knocked out from you smacking me in the face as hard as I would ever smack my child on the back of his hand or spank my child on the rear, I would need to turn in every one of my man cards. Jesus, sometimes a quick, sharp notice of pain in the form of a light smack to the back of a hand is precisely what a kid needs to instantly and suddenly get the concept of "DONT DO THAT"

You anti-corporal punishment people just refuse to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we don't derive pleasure from causing any amount of physical harm to our children and maybe, JUST MAYBE, we don't smack the shit out of our children for every minor infraction or for any infraction for that matter. Stop associating an ass spanking that has a force that would be appropriate to cause mild discomfort for a 6 year old to you punching an adult 10 times in the face and knocking them out.

Like I said before, corporal punishment has one purpose in my mind: To demonstrate to a child who is still in very developmental stages when violence occurs. If you curse someone out, you're going to get spanked because guess what happens when you curse someone out in the real world. If you slam someones face into a concrete structure of sorts, you can expect a physical retaliation. If you point a gun at someone or steal someones money, you can expect a physical retaliation of sorts.

Those are really the only situations I could ever imagine spanking my child, ever. Of COURSE if you spank your child all the time or smack him around he'll assume that the solution to everything is violence. However, you have to be beyond naive to think that violence still doesn't exist in our world and your child needs to learn the consequences of his actions, and he needs to learn that some things are so inappropriate he needs to never do it ever. If I only ever spank my child one or two times in the entirety of his life -- those one or two times I spank him is going to be in his memory forever. And he's going to remember the explanation I told him afterwards of why what he did was wrong, and you can guarantee he's never going to do those things again.

On May 28 2013 22:56 lisward wrote:


It's delusional to refuse to admit that many parents venture into th realm of physical abuse when dispensing so called corporal punishment.

There are statistics, studies, numbers, these are all facts that have been proved to be true.

I think it's funny society deems it fit to train your kids with your fists, but this same society frowns upon using physical punishment to train animals.

On May 28 2013 05:59 Xenocide_Knight wrote:




So how many of you were actually beat as children? Because these are all ridiculously broad statements that can be easily challenged. For instance, Zoler's quote especially is comically ignorant and close-minded. PanN's post was "All parents who hit their children are cowards" from which you have to come to the conclusion "99% of all parents in asia are cowards" and because the majority of people end up being parents, "the majority of asians are cowards". Or Liquid Drone's post somehow comes to the conclusion that "because a child was hit, therefore the child learned that hitting others is ok".

I was always hit as a child and pretty much the biggest lesson ingrained in my head was "it is under no circumstance ok for me to hit anyone else. Only parents can hit only their own children." I never saw my parents hit anyone or even anything other than me. Even my younger sister was never hit. So i learned "don't hit girls", "don't hit young children", and "as the eldest male, my punishments must be stricter as I have much greater responsibility".

On May 29 2013 04:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
and btw to directly answer your question; my mom once hit me once when I was 3 or 4. supposedly I had deliberately been pushing her buttons for a prolonged period of time and essentially just tried to piss her off as much as I could. after she hit me, I told her "hitting people is wrong!" (as this was knowledge previously installed in me. ) she felt terrible about it.

On May 29 2013 04:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't know. parenting is tough. I don't recall the scenario myself (it certainly wasn't traumatizing. ) I do think that normally, simply grabbing hold of me and looking me straight into the eyes while sternly stating that I absolutely need to stop right at this very moment and if I do not then "x" will not happen (where x is something I am looking forward to), and where if I do not stop then "x" really does not happen, is a better way of going about it.

On May 29 2013 04:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:

+ Show Spoiler +

On May 29 2013 04:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
it also teaches the child the lesson that they can hit others if they find themselves in a similar scenario as you as an adult just found yourself in.

On May 29 2013 09:21 micronesia wrote:
On the flip side, children who weren't disciplined (whether it be with spanking or not) successfully tend to behave in ways that increase their chances of getting physically hurt by others (antagonizing someone twice your size, for example). It seems that reducing violence is a very difficult (albeit important) goal to achieve.

On May 29 2013 14:04 dongmydrum wrote:
Oh how objective, unbiased, and open-minded you guys are
I was gonna say controlled corporal punishment without emotion is ok and lay out my arguments
but then i read some comments saying that everybody who supports corporal punishment was subject to
corporal punishment when they were young and that's the reason why they support corporal punishment.
Sort of like trying to justify my past huh? that sounds like reasonable so i guess that must be true.

On May 26 2013 19:41 salle wrote:

I completely agree, it's a very very bad way to try and teach someone something. Positive reinforcement is much better, but also much harder for a lot of people to do for whatever reason. However it is a form of negative reinforcement... (do wrong, get pain).

On May 28 2013 22:40 Fruscainte wrote:


Are you trying to imply children should have the same freedoms and rights as adults and we need to treat our children as equals and like we treat other adults? I don't know how the culture is in Norway and that might just be the way things are done over there, but I can't help but laugh at that idea.



If I somehow get knocked out from you smacking me in the face as hard as I would ever smack my child on the back of his hand or spank my child on the rear, I would need to turn in every one of my man cards. Jesus, sometimes a quick, sharp notice of pain in the form of a light smack to the back of a hand is precisely what a kid needs to instantly and suddenly get the concept of "DONT DO THAT"

You anti-corporal punishment people just refuse to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we don't derive pleasure from causing any amount of physical harm to our children and maybe, JUST MAYBE, we don't smack the shit out of our children for every minor infraction or for any infraction for that matter. Stop associating an ass spanking that has a force that would be appropriate to cause mild discomfort for a 6 year old to you punching an adult 10 times in the face and knocking them out.

Like I said before, corporal punishment has one purpose in my mind: To demonstrate to a child who is still in very developmental stages when violence occurs. If you curse someone out, you're going to get spanked because guess what happens when you curse someone out in the real world. If you slam someones face into a concrete structure of sorts, you can expect a physical retaliation. If you point a gun at someone or steal someones money, you can expect a physical retaliation of sorts.

Those are really the only situations I could ever imagine spanking my child, ever. Of COURSE if you spank your child all the time or smack him around he'll assume that the solution to everything is violence. However, you have to be beyond naive to think that violence still doesn't exist in our world and your child needs to learn the consequences of his actions, and he needs to learn that some things are so inappropriate he needs to never do it ever. If I only ever spank my child one or two times in the entirety of his life -- those one or two times I spank him is going to be in his memory forever. And he's going to remember the explanation I told him afterwards of why what he did was wrong, and you can guarantee he's never going to do those things again.