EPTBeating Kids? - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Proposal
United States1310 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On December 29 2008 11:51 Proposal wrote: I think we mostly talk about our parents and how they raised us. Which is completely biased. I have actually baby sat 2-6 year olds before and sometimes they just need a smack when timeout and other shit doesn't work. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On December 28 2008 19:56 ParasitJonte wrote: "Well, at first you should try to study, but if that doesn't work just cheat." The inherent badness of spanking is presupposed in making this analogy. That's a valid point. However, you use the word "spanking" whereas I would prefer that we simply stick to physical violence. And yes, I think physical violence has an inherent badness. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On December 29 2008 12:42 CharlieMurphy wrote: Which is completely biased. I have actually baby sat 2-6 year olds before and sometimes they just need a smack when timeout and other shit doesn't work. The fact that you babysit is disturbing. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On December 29 2008 07:47 BlackStar wrote: Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. Wrong. | ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
| ||
|
vAltyR
United States581 Posts
Obviously, as with everything, moderation is key. If the first thing you do when a kid does something wrong is spanking, then you're doing something wrong. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
I'm not saying that the occasional spank (note, not spanking, i.e. extended session) or slap on the hand is out of line (although I would never recommend either), but anything beyond that is completely unnecessary in my eyes. Once a child is old enough to converse with, there is even less justification for physical discipline as explanation and teaching becomes entirely possible and appropriate. At that point you explain why something is bad, beyond the reason that it will lead to getting hit. Again, this is just my opinion based upon my personal experiences and what I've seen or heard of others' experiences. I'm certainly not going to pretend I understand the difficulties involved in parenting, I appreciate that it's the most difficult and important job most adults will ever have. However, because of that, I think it's important for people to look beyond what works argument, and think about what works best. Both physical and non-physical discipline can be effective, but I think we can all agree that non-physical is preferable so long as it works. As such, I don't think any parent should ever go in with physical discipline as their chosen method before seriously attempting non-physical discipline to the best of their abilities. Any good parent would loathe the idea of inflicting pain upon a child, so why do so unnecessarily? P.S. My parents never resorted to physical discipline (closest was my dad slamming his hand on the table to scare us and let us know we were stepping out of line), and both my brother and I grew up very aware of what was right and wrong, and never got into any serious trouble. My parents taught us what was right and wrong while we were growing up, through words and by example, and my brother and I appreciated and loved my parents enough to respect them and not do things that would upset or disappoint them. Not saying that this confirms that there is no justification for physical discipline, but I thought I'd provide at least one more example of non-physical discipline being very effective. I firmly believe that loving and attentive parents who take the time to teach their kids will never need to resort to physical discipline, and will always get better results than those who do use it. Physical discipline is often (not always) used to compensate for a lack of care or attention. | ||
| ||
