RE: Mr_Doomed

As I said, a rational punishment is a measured one. I'm not saying it's ethical because you're not angry when you do it. I'm saying it's ethical because you've measured out what the punishment actually is in correct proportion to what was done. Which is exactly what I'd expect from any parent trying to discipline a child with any sort of punishment. I'm saying spanking is a tool, like every other method of teaching a child, and with careful application of that tool you can use it to meet an end. It's not a be-all and end-all tool for every problem that comes up. You can't simply use it to it's maximum extent and expect it not to break something.

If you lock your child in a closet all day for stealing $20 from your wallet, I would say you have not made a rational and measured decision regarding the punishment you have set. In fact you illustrate my point rather well by using hyperbole here. You show quite well what a completely unreasonable response is, regardless of the punishment. You can take anything too far. What is the tangible difference between the closet and their room? or a corner? or making them sit on a chair? or prison even? It's all detainment and confinement, however it is a different measure of the same thing.

If you remove privileges or toys or allowances, is this not tangibly the same thing as paying a fine in normal society?

Or extra chores to community service?

If someone in normal society goes out and strikes another person, they are going to get struck right back either by that individual or almost certainly the police.

A rationally derived response, meaning not affected by mitigating emotions such as rage or anger, will form the most correct and measured response. This is how punishments should be made.


As a general last point, if no punishments are needed then I am all for such a case. I would much rather explain to my child why they shouldn't do something rather than have to punish them and I would hope they listen. However if it needs reinforcing then that is what must be done. Spanking isn't the first thing I would go for. However I believe sincerely, that just because it is no preferable, doesn't mean it has no use as a deterrent.

I do see your point. Desperation however breaks the tenement of rationality. If someone is truly that far gone as to do such a thing in a blind desperate attempt, no law or regulation in place will prevent it from occurring. I think what's best would be better education to older students and indeed to your own teenagers on how to actually be a parent. Such preparation might leave them better equipped so as not to turn in desperation to one thing or another.

I simly can not separate hitting people from anger.Almost everytime I hit someone or someone hit me it was out of anger. When words fail fists must be used. That's what anger tells you.

I don't see it spanking being out of anger all the time. A light smack on the bottom isn't going to kill your kid, but it get's the point across.

Wow. You guys are all so smart and make great points, therefore the answer must be somewhere in between. Here's what I'm thinking.
Somebody said "I wouldn't spank someone under three." (Too long ago for me to make a proper quote, sorrry.) That got me thinking...
You were all talking about logically explaining why a child shouldn't do a negative thing to the child. "Jeremy, you shouldn't swear because it offends people etc. etc." I totally agree! If the only reason a child knows not to do something is fear of physical violence, why would they not do it if the threat is gone, like when the parents are away? They need to understand morals for the sake of morals. However...
Such explanations wouldn't be suitable for a very young child. They wouldn't understand it. But young children need to equate negative behavior as being negative; those early years can be so crucial! So, I would advocate that ONLY young children are spanked. Not very severly of course; a toddlers skin can be so delicate. But enough for them to go "Crap, that sucked." Once they can understand why that behaviour is bad, the spanking should stop.
The anger thing. A slap out of anger is totally different than a slap that is calculated. It's all about the motive. One shouldn't spank to release rage, they should spank for the reasons I mentioned above. And the child can TOTALLY tell the difference. That's why such spanking isn't going to turn children into sociopathic sadists: because they don't think "I'm angry so I hit."

Why do we have to use the words and not simply hiting.It's far more general.
Truth if they understand they did wrong there is no need to hit them. If they didn't I doubt a few hits is going to help.
If you hit them too hard it won't make any difrence wheter you were angry or not.

Now simply being able to tell something is bad is not enough.You ay still end up doing it again.
Here's an example.
I drank a lot of wine one night. What a horble experience!
Simply couldn't sleep and was trembling al over. Then the next night I dd it all over again despite my previous experience.

I live in an area populated by a lot of kids and spanking can go both ways depending on the child.

Way 1: The parent hits the child only to teach it a lesson for having done something extremely wrong. For example i use myself, i whacked my mother around the face with a band stick when i was five and laughed at it. I split her lip. My mother felt horrible but she took the band stick of me and hit me around the back of the legs with it, i hit her much harder than she hit me, and i sure as hell never did it again. I learnt my lesson and realised it was wrong. Therefore, child can learn its lesson and realise that if it does something bad then it should expect to have something done back to it.

Way 2: The parents hit the child excessevily and seek to use it as a way of control, even if its just a light tap. This inevitably goes wrong and the child either rebels or retreats into itself.

Honestly, i think spanking should only be used as a last measure, we mollycoddle our children too much now, and however it may hurt us to hit them it teaches them that doing something really wrong has consequences. You get kids that expect the world to be handed to them on a plate and that they deserve everything. They dont want to work for it, and they dont want to try.

Spanking can be balanced by rewards. Thats my view though. Everyone has their own opinions on it though, and a right to their own opinions.

I was spanked as a child, my sister was not.

I would only ever get spanked when I deliberately disobeyed my parent's, and especially if I did something dangerous. I was not afraid of the pain of spanking, I was afraid of the shame and humiliation of it. My pants were never pulled down or anything of the nature, it was just a shameful thing in general to get scolded. Time-Outs did not work for me, as I was an only child up until I was 7 and was used to being alone for hours on end already.

By the time I was in Middle School, I was afraid to get in trouble, knowing that I would /not/ be spanked but knowing that my father was capable of doing so prevented me from disobeying him.

My sister did not receive the same treatment and... she's a spoiled brat. We have tried time-outs and it absolutely didn't work. It just makes me think how she would have been better behaved in public if my mom had taught her what discipline was.

I apologize for my dissection format. I do not like to respond in this manner but it was the only way I could since the post was so long.

Lukisod wrote:No. I see rival male lions eat other cubs born of other lions. By the same token you see the cubs play fight almost their entire lives in preparation for that time in their lives when they will have to either fend off another male lion to keep his cubs from being eaten, or to kill prey to feed her family. So I don't see what this response has to do with the argument. Much as I agree and don't see this as a valid reason to spank a child.

Male lions are not teaching their young when they kill cubs they are increasing the fitness of their future offspring.

Lukisod wrote:No it means they were smacked and found it a meaningful punishment. All we can do as new parents is learn from others, and the first ones we go to as an example is our own. It's not they can't relate or integrate with society, it's that they ARE relating to others. Their parents did it to them with some success and they are the most reliable guide to parenting they have (in most cases). If they really saw it as a something not to do they would relate to it as an example of what not to do.

One experience is not data.

Lukisod wrote:I fail to see the parallel. Warfare is almost always a direct result of a society feeling vulnerable in some way. Poverty is due largely to childish infighting of people with power over the best way to deal with poverty while the impoverished suffer from indecision. I find it just as disappointing but the argument against corporal punishment isn't valid. We don't do warfare and poverty because "we've always done it and why change?", we do it because of a series of complex internal and external factors associated with societal interaction.

You fail to see the connection between early childhood and adult psychology? How..?

Lukisod wrote:This is your first relevant point so far and I have to agree here. However the underlying purpose can still serve. Physical violence is a very real consequence of ignoring certain authority. I wouldn't use spanking as a method to discourage trivial matters. I'd use it as a deterrent to violence against others and only if such a punishment is warranted by the circumstances.

LOL agrees but still manages to slip in an ad hominem, classic internet debater

Lukisod wrote:So you're willing to live in a country that does not seek to pursue and exercise global power for the sake of creating a safer and more stable place to live for it's own people and for the world in general? Again. The parallel between world politics and discipline in the home are not realistic. Actions DO have consequences. Some of them negative. Absolutely children need to learn consequences for their actions and as well they should learn proportional response. If my child hit's someone for no good reason they'll learn that hitting someone else sucks for the victim and I'm willing to bet a spanking or two will get it through to him that it's not a nice thing to do to other people under most circumstances. I'll explain there is a reason to use violence and what they did was not such a reason. They caused harm comparable to what I just inflicted on them for no good reason.

That is my point antagonizing regimes does not make the world safer. It gives hardline elements fuel for their arguments and converts moderates to their side.

The parallel is perfectly realistic because it is early development and home experience which forms our adult psychology and influences how we see the world.

Lukisod wrote:Have you ever considered that your own experience is the same type of anecdotal evidence you claim doesn't count for the other side? It's all well and good if your students all liked you as a teacher and never gave you a hard time. You interact with those students probably 8 hours a day. The parents of those kids live with them far more of the day and have to regularly see the sides of the child you may not. I'd invoke the grandmother syndrome (as I'll call it) you're never acting badly at grandmas house and always like her because she's not a disciplinarian figure in your life (usually) She's it outside the normal confines of parents who are the ones normally doling out punishments in order to teach you life lessons and keep you on the right track as a future member of society. Just my hypothesis here but I feel it could go a ways to explain why your classes are the way they are. Perhaps you should reconsider giving parental advice based on a narrow window of experience and based on a dystopian world view you seem to equate or attribute to spanking? I would almost go so far as to suspect a bad experience somewhere in your past which has skewed your views, to which I'm deeply sorry such a thing occurred to you and indeed to anyone else reading this, I really am. However it's not a valid basis for the total elimination of a method of punishment. Only a caution against taking it too far.

This is your first relevant point so far and I have to agree here. LOL Copy Pasta. However, you then digress into a psychological analysis of me, a person you hardly know. Truly you are a powerful reader of minds. Perhaps I should assume that your excessive counter-argument is the result of your desire to justify your own horrific childhood? Oh wait that would be arrogant and presumptuous, sorry.

Lukisod wrote:I hope you understand.

Smug-factor 5

Lukisod wrote:Yes it does. A rational application of punishment is a measured application to create the desired effect. When you spank your child you do it in a justified and measured way which best meets the goals of creating a negative association with the behaviour exhibited. Is it generally ethical to imprison someone? To take their money without consent? To strike someone? No. But as a rational and measured response to a negative behaviour it can be used with some success in a corrective measure against such behaviour. I make much the same argument for spanking.

The ethics of an act are at issue not the psychological state of the actor. Assaulting someone would still be assault if I did so with a cool head and rational motives. In fact, if anything cold calculation nets harsher punishments in most justice systems.


You also seem to assume I want to outlaw spanking. This is a fair assumption since we live in a world where everyone seems to want to run everyone else's lives. However, let me make it clear that parent's parenting is their own business so long as they don't injure the child or hit the child anywhere near me. I am not a fascist and therefore my opinions do not automatically translate into what I think the law should be.