| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
The only reason you'd use violence is because you can't show authority without it. I've never been spanked, and everyone I know who has been spanked, while being good people, generally are more insecure with issues of selfesteem and such (this might have something to do with spanking being very uncommon among their peers). | ||
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
It teaches them some flawed kind of lesson that teaches you that you should be respectful to people or else you will be punished, rather than teaching people to be good for the sake of being good. Isn't that true of most forms of discipline such as grounding? If you don't talk respectfully, you will be punished by sitting in your room rather than talking respectfully for its own sake? Or do you advocate only talking about the benefits of obedience when a child is willfully disobeying while getting sassy about it? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On September 21 2014 04:43 Nyxisto wrote: Are you just being sarcastic here? http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2008/09/25/us-kids-take-more-psychotropic-drugs-than-europeans Also since when is physical punishment for "strong willed" children a necessity? It would be very helpful if you'd stop making shit up And you didn't bother to read the next line. We over medicate children that can't sit still here. That leads to most of the problem with that. Which I mentioned on the next line... As for "strong willed" children, feel free to read up on the subject. It's interesting. Also, I said "physical punishment". I never said spanking directly. It's a good exercise for everyone here to ask your parents how much actual correction was required from the time period you *do not* remember. You'll likely be surprised. Everything from removing toys, to removing you from an area to picking you put and placing you somewhere else. This is still direct, physical punishment. There's a scale to punishment; and there's also a scale to how much actual damage a child can do/can get into. If you put a child in a complete bubble, they do need less correction because there is less for them to harm themselves on. Which might be the actual driving difference. Being wrapped in historically odd safety has interesting effects on a society. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 21 2014 06:30 Taf the Ghost wrote: And you didn't bother to read the next line. We over medicate children that can't sit still here. That leads to most of the problem with that. Which I mentioned on the next line... As for "strong willed" children, feel free to read up on the subject. It's interesting. Also, I said "physical punishment". I never said spanking directly. It's a good exercise for everyone here to ask your parents how much actual correction was required from the time period you *do not* remember. You'll likely be surprised. Everything from removing toys, to removing you from an area to picking you put and placing you somewhere else. This is still direct, physical punishment. There's a scale to punishment; and there's also a scale to how much actual damage a child can do/can get into. If you put a child in a complete bubble, they do need less correction because there is less for them to harm themselves on. Which might be the actual driving difference. Being wrapped in historically odd safety has interesting effects on a society. You literally said that we (us wonky Europeans who don't beat their children) are "drugging a child up to the nines" which is flat out wrong. Now you're trying to tell me that taking some child's toys away is physical punishment, which firstly: is also wrong(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_punishment), and secondly, is not was this thread is about. Also, just because you don't use corporal punishment you're not "putting your child into a bubble". You're simply raising it without resorting to physical punishment. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
On September 21 2014 06:28 IgnE wrote: If it's good enough for kids why isn't it good enough for adults. For everyone who advocates spanking do you also advocate caning for criminals and public offenders? Caning is not equivalent to spanking. Caning is equivalent to beating your child and I do not advocate that. There is no equivalent because there really is only a window of time where it can work. After a certain age it inevitably becomes ineffective because if administred in the way advocates suggest, you were not using much force all along. There is no magical time at the end of childhood when spanking becomes ineffective, because children vary so much emotionally and developmentally. But as a general guideline, I would suggest that most corporal punishment be finished prior to the first grade (six years old). It should taper off from there and stop when the child is between the ages of ten and twelve. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 21 2014 06:40 Terranist wrote: i believe timeout is more effective in some cases. i feared losing my gameboy for a week more than i did being spanked. adrian peterson's child is probably spoiled as all hell though so spanking is probably the only good option he had. yeah, bet all the child abusers just dont have better options pls, the dude beat his child till the kid was bleeding | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
On September 21 2014 06:00 Falling wrote: Isn't that true of most forms of discipline such as grounding? If you don't talk respectfully, you will be punished by sitting in your room rather than talking respectfully for its own sake? Or do you advocate only talking about the benefits of obedience when a child is willfully disobeying while getting sassy about it? Well punishment is punishment, but if they learn that spanking is what you should fear/respect/whatever, gl having them respect a school teacher who cannot spank them for obvious reasons. Assume a teacher had to discipline a child at school, how'd they ever exercise authority? I dont know exactly how I'd pin it down, I'd just make sure to have contact with the child so they understand what they've done wrong rather than just be afraid of the punishment. I know children are smart enough to have a sense of right and wrong from a very early age. In regards to unruly / naughty kids (especially the "hyper" boys), as long as they aren't doing anything with malicious intent and that I feel like I can be in contact with them I think (emphasize this word alot atm), that most kids will be better once they mature and grow up some. In any case, I just fail to see how spanking teaches anything else than "what is wrong and what is okay", instead of "why x is wrong and why x is okay", it's very foreign to me, especially since the people I know who've been spanked as a child think more in "what's" than in "why's". | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
On September 21 2014 07:34 Iplaythings wrote: Well punishment is punishment, but if they learn that spanking is what you should fear/respect/whatever, gl having them respect a school teacher who cannot spank them for obvious reasons. Assume a teacher had to discipline a child at school, how'd they ever exercise authority? I dont know exactly how I'd pin it down, I'd just make sure to have contact with the child so they understand what they've done wrong rather than just be afraid of the punishment. I know children are smart enough to have a sense of right and wrong from a very early age. In regards to unruly / naughty kids (especially the "hyper" boys), as long as they aren't doing anything with malicious intent and that I feel like I can be in contact with them I think (emphasize this word alot atm), that most kids will be better once they mature and grow up some. In any case, I just fail to see how spanking teaches anything else than "what is wrong and what is okay", instead of "why x is wrong and why x is okay", it's very foreign to me, especially since the people I know who've been spanked as a child think more in "what's" than in "why's". The point is to train them up when they are young, so they will continue when they are older- phase out by grade school, though maybe rarely used after. (tbh honest, it varies a lot. The oldest child tends to get the most as a bit of trail-blazer in many respects. The younger siblings have a lot of older siblings warning them not to do this or that- assuming a family of more than one or two children.) Spanking does not form a narrowly applicable lesson of only respecting the person who spanks you. Presumably though, if a teacher is having troubles with a child, then when the teacher contacts the parents, they are the sort of parents that will follow up at home rather than a push back against the teacher. When spanking is necessary, it is rarely the case that the child simply did not know what was wrong. That's not the time for it, that would be a great time for explanations and a myriad of other methods. Where it is more likely coming into play is they are doing wrong, and they don't care. When they understand perfectly well, and then go ahead contra your explanation, request, alternative option, etc. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
nothing lasting damage though, it's normally the dissapointment from my parents that hurt the most | ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
On September 21 2014 06:40 Terranist wrote: i believe timeout is more effective in some cases. i feared losing my gameboy for a week more than i did being spanked. adrian peterson's child is probably spoiled as all hell though so spanking is probably the only good option he had. Same, I think it's more common in poor families because they have fewer expensive toys and electronics to take away. My parents only hit me when they were actually angry, never as planned discipline. | ||
|
Thalandros
Netherlands1151 Posts
| ||
|
Kamate
Romania580 Posts
| ||
|
MysteryMeat1
United States3291 Posts
On September 20 2014 21:13 Squat wrote: If he tortures other living creatures as a pastime, spanking is about as effective as a bandaid on a severed arm. Also, punishing a kid by cleaning his mouth with soap is physical abuse by any definition. You are forcefully inserting harmful and painful chemicals and substances into the child's mouth, for the express purpose of imparting a lesson. It's worse than spanking because the physical pain and violation is worse, not because it's different. Again, children are children, German or Ukrainian or Canadian or wherever from. There is no different principle of psychological well-being that only applies to children within a specific geographic area. You are right that the variables involved are complex, but the answer is probably rather simple: Beating children is very likely bad for them, and this is likely going to be substantiated by science within a few decades at most. A little soap never hurt anyone. Im personally not against spanking or washing someones mouth out with soap. Howeve i think someone needs to clarify a defintion of spanking cause i feel lik people might be taking it too far. | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On September 21 2014 06:41 Falling wrote: Caning is not equivalent to spanking. Caning is equivalent to beating your child and I do not advocate that. There is no equivalent because there really is only a window of time where it can work. After a certain age it inevitably becomes ineffective because if administred in the way advocates suggest, you were not using much force all along. To be fair, a spank on the hand of a sixteen year old is not going to be effective at all, if you're going to whup a sixteen year old you're going to have to use a cane or something similar to have any effect. Then again, if they're not disciplined by the time they're that old it's too late anyway, so it's probably not worth it then. On September 21 2014 07:43 Plexa wrote: Was spanked with hand only. We actually made it illegal for parents to forcible discipline their children here and it's worked out pretty well. Despite there being very few prosecutions, it does show that NZ society is by in large not okay with this kind of brutality. If you're using an external object and/or drawing blood and/or causing bruising that's seriously fucked imo. As a fellow New Zealander, it's false that it has worked out pretty well. The number of notifications that police receive every year has risen vastly, but the number of prosecutions has scarcely changed. The law change is clearly ineffective. In addition, there's no indication that the law change has done anything to decrease the amount of actual child abuse. Instead, real child abusers are now mixed in with thousands of ordinary parents who smack their children, making it harder for the police to find the real child abuse. Because of the sheer number of notifications the police receive, they have actually decreased the percentage of notifications they check up on; this would not have happened if the law had not changed, as the notifications would be much fewer (no ordinary smackings reported). New Zealand society at large is AGAINST the anti-smacking bill, with numbers at approximately 80% the last I saw (earlier this year). New Zealanders at large are against child abuse, certainly. NZers at large are NOT against smacking and it is false to insinuate so. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv20084 gofns12169 summit1g11215 Grubby3136 FrodaN2996 B2W.Neo674 Mlord630 crisheroes369 ToD314 Hui .115 NeuroSwarm109 Trikslyr76 mouzStarbuck22 NarutO  21 |
|
Online Event
MaxPax vs herO
SHIN vs Cure
Clem vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs herO
ShoWTimE vs Clem
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
AllThingsProtoss
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Chat StarLeague
BSL Season 20
MadiNho vs dxtr13
Gypsy vs Dark
Circuito Brasileiro de…
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Light
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
