Would you sent your child to school which allows corporal punishment?

[Kelfa28]

No, absolutely not.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Corporal punishment is hitting. If someone sees hitting as wrong, then they will see corporal punishment as wrong.

They don’t see it as a parenting choice. If hitting is wrong, then hitting a child is wrong.

Using your loose and flawed logic, if hitting is wrong, hitting a baseball is wrong. You can’t make that leap. You have to define hitting, and define a spanking, or a swat on the tush, or whatever, and it becomes obvious the two are not the same in most cases. If you don’t want to spank, so be it. I am sure there are people who see that as a sign of poor parenting, but that isn’t any of their business either.

At any rate, it isn’t illegal (yet) and there are studies that both reinforce its effectiveness, and ones that reinforce its negative impact. As such, it becomes none of any else’s business. If it bothers you and you actually believe it to be child abuse, go call CPS.

 

[maryjk]

Using your loose and flawed logic, if hitting is wrong, hitting a baseball is wrong. You can’t make that leap. You have to define hitting, and define a spanking, or a swat on the tush, or whatever, and it becomes obvious the two are not the same in most cases. If you don’t want to spank, so be it. I am sure there are people who see that as a sign of poor parenting, but that isn’t any of their business either.

At any rate, it isn’t illegal (yet) and there are studies that both reinforce its effectiveness, and ones that reinforce its negative impact. As such, it becomes none of any else’s business. If it bothers you and you actually believe it to be child abuse, go call CPS.

Back off. ::takethat:

I didn’t indicate in ANY way what I thought.

I simply answered your question

Why is those who favor the use of generally limited corporal punishment never similarly feel the need to chastise or criticize parents who don’t want to use it?

 

[EasterJoy]

Using your loose and flawed logic, if hitting is wrong, hitting a baseball is wrong. You can’t make that leap. You have to define hitting, and define a spanking, or a swat on the tush, or whatever, and it becomes obvious the two are not the same in most cases. If you don’t want to spank, so be it. I am sure there are people who see that as a sign of poor parenting, but that isn’t any of their business either.

At any rate, it isn’t illegal (yet) and there are studies that both reinforce its effectiveness, and ones that reinforce its negative impact. As such, it becomes none of any else’s business. If it bothers you and you actually believe it to be child abuse, go call CPS.

This is such a misreading of what she meant, it strains belief that it is not willful. Just say that you don’t think corporal punishment is wrong, and have it over with.

And, by the way, if you don’t think that parents who don’t spank don’t get criticized, think again. Oh, no…if you don’t spank and your kid misbehaves, there is the whole chorus that goes up! “WELL, if they just spanked their NAUGHTY LITTLE HIND ENDS like they did in OUR DAY, then by golly those kids wouldn’t act up like that because we just were NEVER allowed to act like THAT!” as if the 1950s were populated by angels who were too mortified at the prospect of a spanking to ever misbehave.

Yeah, right.

 

[3DOCTORS]

This is such a misreading of what she meant, it strains belief that it is not willful. Just say that you don’t think corporal punishment is wrong, and have it over with.

And, by the way, if you don’t think that parents who don’t spank don’t get criticized, think again. Oh, no…if you don’t spank and your kid misbehaves, there is the whole chorus that goes up! “WELL, if they just spanked their NAUGHTY LITTLE HIND ENDS like they did in OUR DAY, then by golly those kids wouldn’t act up like that because we just were NEVER allowed to act like THAT!” as if the 1950s were populated by angels who were too mortified at the prospect of a spanking to ever misbehave.

Yeah, right.

Ain’t that the truth! On my Facebook feeds sometimes I get those little, what would you call them, miniature poster-like sentiments “Back in my day we’d get a whuppin’ blah blah blah like and share if you agree.” I hate those! I hide them.

I’d just like to point out that - not you EasterJoy - but some posters are beginning to take this thread away from answering the original question. While any discussion is bound to encompass somewhat more than the original topic, one should try to keep the original question in mind when posting replies, or else start one’s own thread. :twocents:

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Is there anywhere in the states that allows this?

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Back off. ::takethat:

I didn’t indicate in ANY way what I thought.

I simply answered your question

Sorry. Didn’t mean to be rude. I shouldn’t get so defensive, since I have yet to even spank either of my daughters (only 2 yrs. and 3 months).

Just felt like the logic that if you oppose hitting, you would automaticaly oppose spanking doesn’t make sense, logically.

 

[on_the_hill]

No.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

This is such a misreading of what she meant, it strains belief that it is not willful. Just say that you don’t think corporal punishment is wrong, and have it over with.

Oh, but saying if you oppose hitting, you logically have to automatically oppose spanking doesn’t strain belief? Please. If that is how a person thinks, it means they oppose the military and self-defense (assuming the oppose killing), they oppose havign a child eat their veggies and go to bed on time (assuming you oppose unhappiness), and a whole host of other connections. To not think beyond the one to one connection is to assume we are supposed to be some programmed automoton that reacts by some sort of C++ program. “If x, then y.” No room for common sense or prudence, just pure logic.

And, by the way, if you don’t think that parents who don’t spank don’t get criticized, think again. Oh, no…if you don’t spank and your kid misbehaves, there is the whole chorus that goes up! “WELL, if they just spanked their NAUGHTY LITTLE HIND ENDS like they did in OUR DAY, then by golly those kids wouldn’t act up like that because we just were NEVER allowed to act like THAT!” as if the 1950s were populated by angels who were too mortified at the prospect of a spanking to ever misbehave.

Yeah, right.

Sorry that happens - it isn’t anyone’s business, just like people who make comments about large families, or small famillies. On here, predominantly in these topics, I find a lot more comments comparing parents who use CP to chuild abusers than what you encountered, so perhaps I am biased by these boards.

I haven’t used CP yet, though we haven’t ruled it in exceptional, serious cases. But since I rather liked how it was applied to me, it affects my perspective, as it probably does most people.

 

[maryjk]

Sorry. Didn’t mean to be rude. I shouldn’t get so defensive, since I have yet to even spank either of my daughters (only 2 yrs. and 3 months).

Just felt like the logic that if you oppose hitting, you would automaticaly oppose spanking doesn’t make sense, logically.

My point is and was:

You asked why “people” do something. I explained why “people” might do it.

I didn’t tell you one way or the other if I spank, if I think spanking is a good idea or if I think it should be against the law.

Your responses indicate that you have attributed those reasons to me.

Since this isn’t a thread about spanking your own children, I haven’t indicated what I think about that.

All I have said is that I wouldn’t send my child to a school that allowed corporal punishment.

 

[Kit15]

Most likely no. I would not choose a school simply because it allowed corporal punishment. It’s illegal in both public AND private schools my state anyway.

But as with most things parental, I hesitate to say “never”. I think I could send my child to a school* in spite of *allowing corporal punishment rather than make my decision *because *of it.

And just because it was on the books doesn’t mean it’s enforced. I’m pretty sure I spent Kindergarten-4th grade at a school that technically allowed it (at the very least I attended school in a state where it was legal). But I never heard stories or rumors about it being administered to anyone.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

My point is and was:

You asked why “people” do something. I explained why “people” might do it.

I didn’t tell you one way or the other if I spank, if I think spanking is a good idea or if I think it should be against the law.

Your responses indicate that you have attributed those reasons to me.

Since this isn’t a thread about spanking your own children, I haven’t indicated what I think about that.

All I have said is that I wouldn’t send my child to a school that allowed corporal punishment.

That’s fine, it wasn;t you I was explaining, but the flaws in that absolute logic. If someone doesn’t believe in CP at home or at school, they are welcome to do so, obviously.

 

[EasterJoy]

Oh, but saying if you oppose hitting, you logically have to automatically oppose spanking doesn’t strain belief? Please. If that is how a person thinks, it means they oppose the military and self-defense (assuming the oppose killing), they oppose havign a child eat their veggies and go to bed on time (assuming you oppose unhappiness), and a whole host of other connections. To not think beyond the one to one connection is to assume we are supposed to be some programmed automoton that reacts by some sort of C++ program. “If x, then y.” No room for common sense or prudence, just pure logic.

Sorry that happens - it isn’t anyone’s business, just like people who make comments about large families, or small famillies. On here, predominantly in these topics, I find a lot more comments comparing parents who use CP to chuild abusers than what you encountered, so perhaps I am biased by these boards.

I haven’t used CP yet, though we haven’t ruled it in exceptional, serious cases. But since I rather liked how it was applied to me, it affects my perspective, as it probably does most people.

If you don’t oppose corporal punishment, then you are only against inappropriate hitting, not hitting in general, because you obviously have to think there are good reasons and therefore good ways to hit a child, just as most of us will have to admit that there are appropriate reasons to kill somebody, even those of us who generally oppose the death penalty or war, but not both–which is why we say murder is wrong, but not all killing. I don’t think that’s an illogical position. There are very few broad categories of behavior that are always moral or always immoral; rather, it usually depends on the circumstances.

There are, however, people who are so pacifist that they don’t believe in hitting anybody, and certainly not when there is any way to avoid it. Physical resistance or physically subduing somebody, yes, but not hitting. They’re out there.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

If you don’t oppose corporal punishment, then you are only against inappropriate hitting, not hitting in general, because you obviously have to think there are good reasons and therefore good ways to hit a child, just as most of us will have to admit that there are appropriate reasons to kill somebody, even those of us who generally oppose the death penalty or war, but not both–which is why we say murder is wrong, but not all killing. I don’t think that’s an illogical position. There are very few broad categories of behavior that are always moral or always immoral; rather, it usually depends on the circumstances.

There are, however, people who are so pacifist that they don’t believe in hitting anybody, and certainly not when there is any way to avoid it. Physical resistance or physically subduing somebody, yes, but not hitting. They’re out there.

I agree by and large, and unless you believe it is never acceptable to hit in any circumstances, it is a bit of an absolutist position, meaning you wouldn’t ever defend yourself if attacked, nor would you ever spank. To say I oppose CP be hitting is never acceptable means just that - you’d never defend yourself either, because by that definition, it is never acceptable.

Likewise, as I said, if you oppose killing, you’d oppose self-defense killings, either in war or at home to protect your family.

That’s fine, but these decisions are typically more nuanced than that.

 

[dailey]

Never!

Yep, me too.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree by and large, and unless you believe it is never acceptable to hit in any circumstances, it is a bit of an absolutist position, meaning you wouldn’t ever defend yourself if attacked, nor would you ever spank. To say I oppose CP be hitting is never acceptable means just that - you’d never defend yourself either, because by that definition, it is never acceptable.

Likewise, as I said, if you oppose killing, you’d oppose self-defense killings, either in war or at home to protect your family.

That’s fine, but these decisions are typically more nuanced than that.

Well, if someone would only hit* in self-defense*, just as they’d only kill in self-defense, then of course it would be an extremely rare situation in which they’d hit a child. Corporal punishment is not self-defense. It is almost always intended as a deterrent (although I suppose it could be considered retribution, I think preventing bad behavior is the primary motive for using it.)

In the case of a school, for instance, a school that forbids corporal punishment would not forbid a teacher from defending herself if she were physically attacked by a child or a group of children. Once her attacker was subdued, however, she would be forbidden from hitting the child in punishment beyond that.

 

[fdeunha]

Yes. I believe in certain cases, not for whatever reason but yes in serious issues, teachers must punish boys that way. When I was at high school a student was expelled from class but he refused to leave the classroom. I think that in such cases, when teacher’s authority is being questioned, he must be allowed to use corporal punishment.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Well, if someone would only hit* in self-defense*, just as they’d only kill in self-defense, then of course it would be an extremely rare situation in which they’d hit a child. Corporal punishment is not self-defense. It is almost always intended as a deterrent (although I suppose it could be considered retribution, I think preventing bad behavior is the primary motive for using it.)

In the case of a school, for instance, a school that forbids corporal punishment would not forbid a teacher from defending herself if she were physically attacked by a child or a group of children. Once her attacker was subdued, however, she would be forbidden from hitting the child in punishment beyond that.

Again though, if someone says “CP is wrong because hitting is wrong,” that is an absolute, pre-programmed statement with no room for common sense or adaptation… If that is the logic applied, it would then also rule out self-defense or fighting back (because again, hitting is wrong.)

Never mind the fact that hitting someone as an aggressive attack is different than CP, much like hitting someone with an aggressive attack is different than defending yourself.

The physical act may be similar, but the motivations and reasons behind it are completely different. Much like killing in war to defend one’s house. It may still be killing, but it isn;t the same thing as going out and killing for no good reason.

I personally don’t think parents can afford to mindless robots who operate based on “if, then” statements. I can see why some oppose CP, and see the soundness of their logic, but not using the reason mentioned, that is all. It simply rules out a whole host of things they still otherwise do, making the logic tenuous.

 

[EasterJoy]

Again though, if someone says “CP is wrong because hitting is wrong,” that is an absolute, pre-programmed statement with no room for common sense or adaptation… If that is the logic applied, it would then also rule out self-defense or fighting back (because again, hitting is wrong.)

Never mind the fact that hitting someone as an aggressive attack is different than CP, much like hitting someone with an aggressive attack is different than defending yourself.

The physical act may be similar, but the motivations and reasons behind it are completely different. Much like killing in war to defend one’s house. It may still be killing, but it isn;t the same thing as going out and killing for no good reason.

I personally don’t think parents can afford to mindless robots who operate based on “if, then” statements. I can see why some oppose CP, and see the soundness of their logic, but not using the reason mentioned, that is all. It simply rules out a whole host of things they still otherwise do, making the logic tenuous.

Corporal punishment has consequences with regards to the child’s overall relationship with the world as a whole, and in the past the teachers would deal out the punishment while the family bore the consequences. The feedback loop is so often faulty (particularly when class sizes are large) that denying teachers that “tool” is not without common sense, even if you don’t oppose corporal punishment by parents.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Corporal punishment has consequences with regards to the child’s overall relationship with the world as a whole, and in the past the teachers would deal out the punishment while the family bore the consequences. The feedback loop is so often faulty (particularly when class sizes are large) that denying teachers that “tool” is not without common sense, even if you don’t oppose corporal punishment by parents.

That is fine, but again, I was merely challenging the logic that if you believe hitting to be wrong, you then by default believe corporal punishment to be wrong in all cases, since that logic if extended to all decisions (I oppose killing) doesn;t allow for common sense to see that certain situations are not analogous or are more nuanced.

Again, I don’t mind people opposing CP, but question using that particular logic as a good reason for opposing it; that’s all.