Corporal punishment, tips on how to raise children

[VeritasLuxMea]

Here is something else I just thought of.

Let’s debunk the ‘we can’t hit adults’ myth.

When do kids deserve and get spankings? When they cross known boundaries and even after warnings, they are still non compliant and defiant.

Example–
All my kids know to not throw toys or play rough around the baby. This is a known rule. If it happens once, they will get a reminder and a warning. The next time it happens (within a certain amount of time), they are getting spanked. Period, end of story.

We can absolutely use physical force against adults when they cross known boundaries and remain non compliant and defiant.

Example–
Everyone knows not to speed. If you do, and you get pulled over, you must show the police officer your driver’s license and registration. If you refuse to do it, he is probably going to ask you to get out of the car. If you refuse to do that, he is going to forcefully remove you from the car. If you continue to not comply, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a beating, a taser, or a gun, depending on how seriously defiant you are.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is no different than spanking a child. The logic is easy, whether it is for kids or adults.

Rules broke=warning
If warning not heeded=physical force will be used to ensure compliance

Growing up, neither myself nor my brothers (to my knowledge) were ever hit by our parents. We all survived, and live quite normal lives. We’re all married, we have 12 children between us, we all work, none of us have ever been arrested, etc., etc.

I mention this not to suggest that “we weren’t hit and grew up fine = every child can not be hit and grow up fine.”

Rather, I am merely pointing out that the truth that in at least some instances, a child can not be hit by their parents, and yet turn out fine.

So with that in mind, I ask you this:

1. All things being equal, is it preferable for parents to refrain from hitting their children?
2. Is it conceivable that some parents will resort to hitting their children simply because it is the “easy way” of getting what they want?
3. Should not this temptation be avoided?

My answer to all the questions above would be: yes, yes and a third time, yes. How about you?

As it regards the police officer example:

-In law enforcement, it is always preferable to elicit cooperation without the use of violence. Besides the safety of the officer, it’s just… well, we don’t want our police force running around billy clubbing everyone. Humans tend to want to avoid that kind of stuff. While there are certain scenarios in which it may be necessary, you can ask any police officer and I’m sure they will tell you that those scenarios are few and far between.

-Let’s say that the suspect is not cooperating, and all attempts to elicit cooperation voluntarily are not working. The police officer does not (or should not, legally and ethically) resort immediately to beating the suspect. No, instead, the officer will attempt to gain compliance by physically moving the suspect. They will (or should) only hit a suspect when it is absolutely and utterly necessary, such as when they are being threatened or attacked themselves. No one is faulting parents for physically moving/restraining children. We’re talking about hitting. Hitting.

The scenario is not comparable.

For example: how often is a toddler or young child behaving in such a way so as to threaten or attack their parents, as in the police scenario?

For example: when was the last time you heard of a group of police officers hitting a suspect in cold blood so as to “train” him/her, as is the case in the parental scenario? Those that do are likely to get some jail time or face steep judgments in civil court.

Last question: given that there are ways to raise children non-violently, wouldn’t you be better off spending your time researching those methods, rather then using that time to justify the desire of yourself (and others) to hit your children?

TheKingdomOfGod:

My younger sister was not spanked, it was only me and I know when I am a parent I won’t be doing the thing I hated to my children.

I’m sorry to hear about your childhood, but I applaud you for endeavoring to break the cycle of violence. Though your parents (by their actions) tried to teach you that violence is a good way to get what you want, it sounds like you rejected that because your conscience revolted against it. When we have the desire to sin - when we have the desire to hurt another child of God, it is important that we listen to the conscience that God has given us, and not the instincts of our fallen nature.

 

[styrgwillidar]

When I tell a child to do something or not to do something, I expect “Please, do this…” to be sufficient. The “please” is a courtesy, but it is a directive and not a request. .

And when they say no? When they put their face in yours screaming at the top of their lungs to the point your ears hurt that ‘You aren’t my boss’… 'You don’t have a right to tell me what to do!!" “No I’m not!!” over even the simplest requests/directives? (And by ears hurt, I’m not kidding. Similar to a pistol going off with no hearing protection leaving your ears ringing. My daughter has a wonderful singing voice and loud enough in a theater she needs no mic)

When removal of privileges, articles, doesn’t work? When the only way to put them in a time out is to chain/bind/cage them in place? Imagine a therapist advising you to put locks on the doors and windows of your kids room-- on the outside to keep them in. Lock them in like a prisoner.

When removing everything they own including the door to their room is only met with the attitude of an unjustly imprisoned prisoner of conscience? So, any privilege you take away in their minds is unjust, wrong, virtually criminal? Do you never let them attend birthday parties, girl scouts, play-dates, family activities, christmas or easter with relatives, no fourth of july bbq, nothing because they will let you run down the list taking everything away without complying? And you can’t punish your other kids because of this one. They can’t miss out on those activities, they didn’t do anything wrong?

You really going to hire a baby sitter for the willfully disobedient one while you take the other kids? Her face plastered against her window staring at the rest of the family heading off together? Imagining them laughing together, having fun, not missing her---- imagining the rest of her family being glad and relieved she’s not there.

You think that’s better than, I’m going to count to three. One, (YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT…)… Two, (YOU’RE NOT MY BOSS…)… Th… turns and runs to do what she was told.

Willful disobedience. Interesting concept, someone mentioned dogs and humans and trust. The goal in raising your child is to help them develop a fully formed conscience, to know right from wrong. Part of building that trust is them developing the sense of security and trust in you, that you will do what is necessary, you will make the effort, you will not give up on them, that they aren’t an inconvenience you tolerate, that they are worthy of your love and best efforts- whatever that means.

You’re trying to help them develop that fully formed conscience so you can trust them. Not just now, but when they are a teenager. That when you they get that drivers license you know they’ll go where they said they were going, with the people they said they’d be with, and driving safely. Not speeding. Or texting and driving, or going someplace they shouldn’t. That they won’t be raiding liquor cabinets in your and their friends homes. That when they partake in an activity-- you can trust that they’ll obey the relevant authority for preparing and participating. That the adults monitoring the activity will be able to keep them safe since your kid will acknowledge their authority to set rules. (My willfully disobedient friend lost all 4 front teeth at baseball practice. Coach insisted he wear his catcher’s mask, he tossed it aside when coach went to assist some other kids. Third fast ball full in the mouth). Kid who won’t listen to or respect their parents are less likely to listen to or respect other ‘authority figures’, and many of those authority figures assist your kids in remaining safe doing various activities.

You are liable for what they do, but you’re raising the kid so that when they are out of your sight, they do the right thing for their own reasons. That they’ll say no to the kid who wants them to join in on minor vandalism, theft, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, sneaking out etc. That they won’t do those things out of ‘willful disobedience’ that has become their habit over the years.

You don’t hit other adults because you’re not responsible for guiding them, or shaping their conscience. You’re not liable for their future behavior. You are not responsible for them in the same direct manner you are for your children. But society certainly approves of violence in enforcing the laws. Try not paying your taxes for a while. Refuse to go with the nice men who show up inquiring about it. They will use force. They won’t get in trouble for it. It’s kind of part of their job. Kind of like enforcing discipline is a parents. Like a parent, a cop is supposed to use non-violent methods first. He’s supposed to assume the other person is reasonable, is actually innocent, and that they’ll cooperate in their own interests to avoid force if nothing else. Funny how some folks won’t cooperate.

I may be failing more with the one I didn’t hit then the one I did. Did the cooperative one really take on board the idea that what she did was wrong when I corrected her? When I gave her the time-out and explained why it was wrong? Or was it just easier for her to comply and did she just resolve to not get caught next time? Did she do the calculation in her head- If I do this my chances of getting caught are 50%, the probable penalty will be a 10 minute time out if I immediately acquiesce, worth the risk.

Each parent must do what they believe is right for their child. None of the folks giving advice are going to step in and help with legal/financial consequences from the kids actions. A parent can’t use the defense, you can’t charge me or expect me to pay for the damages because I didn’t use corporal punishment because this adviser told me not to.

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

I’m sorry to hear about your childhood, but I applaud you for endeavoring to break the cycle of violence. Though your parents (by their actions) tried to teach you that violence is a good way to get what you want, it sounds like you rejected that because your conscience revolted against it. When we have the desire to sin - when we have the desire to hurt another child of God, it is important that we listen to the conscience that God has given us, and not the instincts of our fallen nature.

Thank you. I was not spanked regularly, only on occasion and I had a good childhood. However I knew what they were doing was wrong and am glad they realised that as well when my sister was born.

 

[anp1215]

When my friend was nursing her 1 1/2 year old, he would occasionally bite her, hard. She would immediately pop him on the head. Was that abuse? What should she have done? Explain to him that he hurt mommy? I don’t see how a 1 1/2 year old could have understood that. I do see how he could understand that, biting mommy=ouch.

I was spanked on occasion when young and barely remember it. What I do remember, is the time my dad told me that I would “never amount to anything.” I also remember being called “stupid.” I will never, ever forget that. The spankings? I rarely even think about them.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Willful disobedience. Interesting concept, someone mentioned dogs and humans and trust. The goal in raising your child is to help them develop a fully formed conscience, to know right from wrong.

What is “right” and “wrong” anymore?

Listening to this conversation, I’m losing sight of that. I mean, we’ve established that hitting your children isn’t wrong. If anything you almost make it sound “right.”

At that point, what “wrongs” are we left with? If we can’t even say that striking the weakest and most vulnerable among us is wrong, what can we say is wrong?

anp1215:

I was spanked on occasion when young and barely remember it. What I do remember, is the time my dad told me that I would “never amount to anything.” I also remember being called “stupid.” I will never, ever forget that. The spankings? I rarely even think about them.

Do you not see any connection between your father’s verbal abuse and his physical abuse?

It is not all that surprising that a father that hits his children may also call them “stupid.”

 

[28562]

What is “right” and “wrong” anymore?

Listening to this conversation, I’m losing sight of that. I mean, we’ve established that hitting your children isn’t wrong. If anything you almost make it sound “right.”

At that point, what “wrongs” are we left with? If we can’t even say that striking the weakest and most vulnerable among us is wrong, what can we say is wrong?

Do you not see any connection between your father’s verbal abuse and his physical abuse?

It is not all that surprising that a father that hits his children may also call them “stupid.”

It is ridiculous to call a simple spanking ‘abuse’.

 

[28562]

Growing up, neither myself nor my brothers (to my knowledge) were ever hit by our parents. We all survived, and live quite normal lives. We’re all married, we have 12 children between us, we all work, none of us have ever been arrested, etc., etc.

I mention this not to suggest that “we weren’t hit and grew up fine = every child can not be hit and grow up fine.”

Rather, I am merely pointing out that the truth that in at least some instances, a child can not be hit by their parents, and yet turn out fine.

So with that in mind, I ask you this:

1. All things being equal, is it preferable for parents to refrain from hitting their children?

There is no point in answering this question, because all things are not equal. All kids aren’t the same and what works for one will never work for all.

1. Is it conceivable that some parents will resort to hitting their children simply because it is the “easy way” of getting what they want?

Is it conceivable that ‘all’ parents should not be restricted because of the actions of ‘some’? Is it conceivable that a lawmaker has no clue what works best for raising my kids or my neighbors? Or millions of others they have never met?

1. Should not this temptation be avoided?

We aren’t talking about sin here. Temptation isn’t important. Should the anti spankers acknowledge that the vast majority of parents can spank without abusing their kids and their kids growing up 'damaged?'

My answer to all the questions above would be: yes, yes and a third time, yes. How about you?

As it regards the police officer example:

-In law enforcement, it is always preferable to elicit cooperation without the use of violence. Same as with raising kids.
Besides the safety of the officer, it’s just… well, we don’t want our police force running around billy clubbing everyone. Humans tend to want to avoid that kind of stuff. While there are certain scenarios in which it may be necessary, you can ask any police officer and I’m sure they will tell you that those scenarios are few and far between. Again, same as with kids.

-Let’s say that the suspect is not cooperating, and all attempts to elicit cooperation voluntarily are not working. The police officer does not (or should not, legally and ethically) resort immediately to beating the suspect. No, instead, the officer will attempt to gain compliance by physically moving the suspect. They will (or should) only hit a suspect when it is absolutely and utterly necessary, such as when they are being threatened or attacked themselves. No one is faulting parents for physically moving/restraining children.How long will it be until someone tells a parent they squeezed their child’s arm too hard while ‘restraining’ them?
We’re talking about hitting. Hitting.It doesn’t make it scarier to say it twice.

The scenario is not comparable.Sure it is. You just don’t want it to be. The point was to debunk the claim that ‘we can’t hit adults’.

For example: how often is a toddler or young child behaving in such a way so as to threaten or attack their parents, as in the police scenario?

For example: when was the last time you heard of a group of police officers hitting a suspect in cold blood so as to “train” him/her, as is the case in the parental scenario? Those that do are likely to get some jail time or face steep judgments in civil court.

I don’t hang out with police often, but I’d be willing to bet that things like this get said all the time.

Last question: given that there are ways to raise children non-violently, wouldn’t you be better off spending your time researching those methods, rather then using that time to justify the desire of yourself (and others) to hit your children?
Wouldn’t you be better off researching how to raise YOUR kids and let others raise theirs how they want to? If my kids are safe, healthy, happy, and well behaved, why is it anyone’s business how they got that way?

When we have the desire to sin - when we have the desire to hurt another child of God, it is important that we listen to the conscience that God has given us, and not the instincts of our fallen nature.

Spanking is not a sin. Don’t try to portray it as such.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

It is ridiculous to call a simple spanking ‘abuse’.

Why?

 

[28562]

Why?

Because it *isn’t *abuse.

 

[anp1215]

What is “right” and “wrong” anymore?

Listening to this conversation, I’m losing sight of that. I mean, we’ve established that hitting your children isn’t wrong. If anything you almost make it sound “right.”

At that point, what “wrongs” are we left with? If we can’t even say that striking the weakest and most vulnerable among us is wrong, what can we say is wrong?

Do you not see any connection between your father’s verbal abuse and his physical abuse?

It is not all that surprising that a father that hits his children may also call them “stupid.”

NO, because my father did NOT physically abuse me.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There is no point in answering this question, because all things are not equal. All kids aren’t the same and what works for one will never work for all.

Don’t try to pull a fast one on me. I acknowledged in that post that children are different, so you’re just dodging the question.

Again: IF you had reason to believe that you could raise your child well without hitting them, would you choose to hit or not to hit?

Is it conceivable that ‘all’ parents should not be restricted because of the actions of ‘some’? Is it conceivable that a lawmaker has no clue what works best for raising my kids or my neighbors? Or millions of others they have never met?

We’re talking about hitting children here. Purposefully inflicting pain on the weakest among us for the purpose of inflicting pain.

To be blunt, if you understand the subject and your primary concern is the freedom of parents to hurt their children, rather than the safety of children then we must be coming from two totally different worldviews and I’m not sure if we’ll be able to reach much of a consensus despite our best attempts.

Nevertheless, I highlight what was my main point with the section you quoted: let’s pretend we live in a world where we are encouraging parents to hit their children. Even in that (in my view) deranged world, we would be well-advised to employ severe caution, such as to ensure that we are hitting our children because it is necessary for them, rather than just convenient for us.

We aren’t talking about sin here. Temptation isn’t important.

Perhaps is it not a sin according to the Church. Very well, then, it is not a sin according to the Church. I say it is immoral, regardless of what the Church says/has said, just like I say that slavery is immoral, regardless of what the Church says/has said.

If you decide that is important to you, then you are quite free to disregard my opinion, as you clearly do.

Should the anti spankers acknowledge that the vast majority of parents can spank without abusing their kids and their kids growing up ‘damaged?’

I most certainly will not acknowledge that, and besides, even if that was true (I do not agree), then it would hardly excuse an immoral act. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Allegra]

Be careful with absolute statements. To say it has NO effect is not true in all cases. As most of us have been saying since the beginning of this thread, every child is different and each parent should have the ability to decide what works for each individual kid.

Millions of people have children who have not been spanked and who have also not been hit by cars. How do you suppose they manage? I propose to keep toddlers from running out in the street by holding their hand when you are walking down the street. I’m willing to bet that you do the same thing, whether you want to admit it or not. If I actually believed your contention that you allow a two-year-old to play near the street with no supervision whatsoever because you have faith in the fact that you gave her a spanking and she’ll never go in the street again I would have to say you are a insane and negligent parent. As it stands, I don’t believe that any parent would actually leave a two-year-old’s life up to “personal responsibility” and then try and brag about it on the internet.

 

[28562]

Millions of people have children who have not been spanked and who have also not been hit by cars. How do you suppose they manage? I propose to keep toddlers from running out in the street by holding their hand when you are walking down the street. I’m willing to bet that you do the same thing, whether you want to admit it or not. If I actually believed your contention that you allow a two-year-old to play near the street with no supervision whatsoever because you have faith in the fact that you gave her a spanking and she’ll never go in the street again I would have to say you are a insane and negligent parent. As it stands, I don’t believe that any parent would actually leave a two-year-old’s life up to “personal responsibility” and then try and brag about it on the internet.

Millions of parents spank and their kids have turned out just fine. How do you think that happened?

Of course I hold their hand. I suppose that you have never had a child wiggle their hand out of yours? I sure wouldn’t want to hold it tight enough that they couldn’t let go! I would be accused of abuse from having a too firm grasp!
And yes, I do let my kids play in the front yard. All of them. There is a line spray painted on the ground that they have been told to not cross. They don’t cross it. If you want to call me negligent and call the police, I will give you my address.
How come with you anti spankers, it has to be one way or the other? Are you guys physically incapable off seeing that there really might be more than one way to skin a cat?

 

[kelvinf]

Rules broke=warning
If warning not heeded=physical force will be used to ensure compliance

Well, not always and not for every rule, I believe.

 

[28562]

Don’t try to pull a fast one on me. I acknowledged in that post that children are different, so you’re just dodging the question.

Again: IF you had reason to believe that you could raise your child well without hitting them, would you choose to hit or not to hit?
If you are as concerned with the answer as you are about being right and debating, then you could read my very first post on this thread. I’m not retyping it because it sucks to post on an iPod.

We’re talking about hitting children here. Purposefully inflicting pain on the weakest among us for the purpose of inflicting pain.
**If you think the purpose is to inflict pain, then you have no clue what we are talking about here. The purpose is discipline–to stop or prevent a behavior. **

To be blunt, if you understand the subject and your primary concern is the freedom of parents to hurt their children, rather than the safety of children then we must be coming from two totally different worldviews and I’m not sure if we’ll be able to reach much of a consensus despite our best attempts.
I most certainly do understand the subject. And the subject is NOT child abuse, no matter how many times you call it such. You are correct on one thing though–we will never agree. If I have my way, we don’t have to because we can decide for ourselves. If you have your way, then you will be allowed to make my parenting decisions for me. What else are you going to decide for me? If you want (name removed by moderator)ut in the raising of my kids, then we are going to expect some other contributions as well. When you start sending money to help with the food bill for them, you opinion will have more weight. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I will never see a check from you…because you only want a say so when it is convenient for you…

Nevertheless, I highlight what was my main point with the section you quoted: let’s pretend we live in a world where we are encouraging parentsWe are not talking about encouraging. We are talking about permitting. Big difference. to hit their children. Even in that (in my view) deranged world, we would be well-advised to employ severe caution, such as to ensure that we are hitting our children because it is necessary for them, rather than just convenient for us.

Perhaps is it not a sin according to the Church. Very well, then, it is not a sin according to the Church. I say it is immoral, regardless of what the Church says/has said, just like I say that slavery is immoral, regardless of what the Church says/has said.

We all know what they say about opinions…and that is all this immoral thing is. Nobody is being harmed in my house, so keep your opinion in yours.

If you decide that is important to you, then you are quite free to disregard my opinion, as you clearly do.

And you quite clearly disagree with me. What is wrong with that?

I most certainly will not acknowledge that, and besides, even if that was true (I do not agree), then it would hardly excuse an immoral act. The ends do not justify the means.

This last sentence is moot. Just because you say it is immoral does not mean it is. Unless of course I am arguing with Jesus and don’t even know it!
Why does it get to be immoral just because you say so? I say it isn’t…why is your opinin more valid than mine?

 

[28562]

Well, not always and not for every rule, I believe.

You are absolutely correct. But it does go to show that it is not true that adults are not allowed to hit each other, regardless of how many times it is claimed.

 

[Allegra]

And when they say no? When they put their face in yours screaming at the top of their lungs to the point your ears hurt that ‘You aren’t my boss’… 'You don’t have a right to tell me what to do!!" “No I’m not!!” over even the simplest requests/directives? (And by ears hurt, I’m not kidding. Similar to a pistol going off with no hearing protection leaving your ears ringing. My daughter has a wonderful singing voice and loud enough in a theater she needs no mic)

Each parent must do what they believe is right for their child. None of the folks giving advice are going to step in and help with legal/financial consequences from the kids actions. A parent can’t use the defense, you can’t charge me or expect me to pay for the damages because I didn’t use corporal punishment because this adviser told me not to.

The situation you described is not normal. It honestly sounds like a child with some sort of disorder effecting their ability to control themselves or a parent that has completely lost control of the situation. (to the extent that the only way they feel they can get it back is through an act of physical aggression)

You probably won’t believe me, but I have never allowed a child to act that way toward me and the only children who have ever attempted it were suffering from a confirmed medical or mental disorder. (The kind that makes an environment that fails to meet expectations extremely distressful for a child.) Would you actually have a conversation with an adult that way? With them screaming at you and throwing a tantrum? Of course not, you would say, this person isn’t getting the time of day with me until they speak properly. It’s the same with a child. They get nothing, absolutely nothing, when they are screaming. (Of course, I’m assuming this isn’t a baby or a child who literally can’t speak.) They will sit on the floor, in the corner. Toys will be removed from the area as well as other children. They get no eye contact, They get no discussion. They will remain that way until they are calm. If the child attempts to get up, you pick her up and put her back. No discussion. No eye contact. Until she is calm and ready to apologize. And if that means no birthday party, that means no birthday party. And if someone takes the other kids to the birthday party while another adult has corner duty, that’s the way it is. I’m not going to let myself be guilted out of properly disciplining a child and no one should. Sometimes, being in charge of a child is quite unpleasant. It becomes considerably less unpleasant when a consistent discipline is established.

It doesn’t really matter what sort consequence is used, as long as the kid can predict it and as long as it is consistent. That means one warning only. I guarentee that unless we are talking a neurological disorder of some kind, this sort of scene would not be playing out.

However, if a parent has to hit their child in order to get control of them, then they aren’t in control at all. I know you don’t wat to hear this, but a child screaming disrespectfully in your face didn’t just happen by fate. The child has had success with this technique in the past and that is why they are doing it again. This is could be the result of a lack of consistency. In a normal situation, parents do not have to hit their kids in order to achieve compliance. The whole situation really and truely can be avoided. Of course, this technique takes time and if you rather hit your kid than them miss the birthday party, just to say you did something, that’s perfectly within your right as a parent. I’m not trying to take away your right to parent however you like. I’m just saying it is not as effective as calm, consistent methods of discipline, it isn’t teaching a child to handle disputes properly, and it is not likely to keep them out of the liquor cabinet later. You can’t say that I don’t know what I’m talking about though because I work with ALL kinds of children and I’m not allowed to spank them whether I thought it would work or not. Despite thousands of unique little temperments and backgrounds, as well as some severe disorders thrown into the mix, I don’t experience what you are describing. You may still want to insist that you have the magical one-in-a-million that I haven’t seen before, and who knows? You could be right. But it’s rather convenient that so many parents of one-in-a-millions always manage to converge on the treads about spanking.

I urge parents who use corporal punishment to do the research and learn more not because I’m one of these types that think spanking is abusive and should be illegal. I’m not. I was spanked as a child and I know lots of children who are spanked frequently. I don’t think they are usually permenantly harmed by it and I don’t think that most parents do it out of maliciousness. I just find it extremely ineffective and I believe there is a better way that has a much more lasting effect.

 

[28562]

It sounds to me like you think spanking and not spanking are exclusive of each other. It is possible, you know, to have more than one discipline strategy. Who said spanking is the only way we discipline? Why would anyone assume that?

 

[Allegra]

Millions of parents spank and their kids have turned out just fine. How do you think that happened?

Of course I hold their hand. I suppose that you have never had a child wiggle their hand out of yours? I sure wouldn’t want to hold it tight enough that they couldn’t let go! I would be accused of abuse from having a too firm grasp!
And yes, I do let my kids play in the front yard. All of them. There is a line spray painted on the ground that they have been told to not cross. They don’t cross it. If you want to call me negligent and call the police, I will give you my address.
How come with you anti spankers, it has to be one way or the other? Are you guys physically incapable off seeing that there really might be more than one way to skin a cat?

There is a vast difference between a child accidentally running into the street when you were trying your best to avoid it and your claim that you teach two-year-olds “personal responsibility” by spanking them and you are perfectly assured that they will never do it again. Obviously, you admit you hold their hand, so you do know that they might do it again. And you are aware that two-year-olds are not capable of controling their impulses and could run into the street at any time if they aren’t being watched properly, whether you spanked them the last time or not. I have no reason to call the police. I have already said that I don’t believe you when you say you leave a toddler to play by the street alone and that you are confident that toddler will never cross the white line.

Are you physically incapable of seeing that there really might be one way to skin a cat that works much better than another? And do you really expect me to believe that a person who proudy admits that he spanks his kid is worried that people would accuse him of holding a child’s hand “too hard” in traffic? If a toddler is trying to get away from you in traffic, you don’t let go and it doesn’t matter if you break his fingers! A wrist cast is alot cheaper than a coffin!

 

[Allegra]

It sounds to me like you think spanking and not spanking are exclusive of each other. It is possible, you know, to have more than one discipline strategy. Who said spanking is the only way we discipline? Why would anyone assume that?

It is a highly documented fact that the biggest factor regarding the ability of an adult to discipline a child is consistancy. Randomly swinging back and forth from one variety to another would probably be even less effective than consistant spankings would.