- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Oct 12
capital punishment seems to have divided the atheist and christians on here. im wondering where everybody falls when it comes to corporal punishment. im guessing the battle lines will be slightly more mixed.
im specifically thinking about corporal punishment and children, should it be allowed at home and to what extent, what about schools, should the police be able to rough up anti-social kids in the street?
30 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieFor all our mental sophistication when we mature, we are still animals. Almost every other human chastises its young with a short, sharp, and non-permanent shock when said young is doing something "bad". That we don't (because a committee has decided we shouldn't) is to betray the simple fact that as the natural world shows us, it's effective! It's especially effective when the kid is at an age where he/she is ill-receptive to a reasoned argument about why what they're doing is wrong (or whether there is a great urgency in preventing some action from happening again)
capital punishment seems to have divided the atheist and christians on here. im wondering where everybody falls when it comes to corporal punishment. im guessing the battle lines will be slightly more mixed.
im specifically thinking about corporal punishment and children, should it be allowed at home and to what extent, what about schools, should the police be able to rough up anti-social kids in the street?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by AgergTo my mind there are two things here.
For all our mental sophistication when we mature, we are still animals. Almost every other human chastises its young with a short, sharp, and non-permanent shock when said young is doing something "bad". That we don't (because a committee has decided we shouldn't) is to betray the simple fact that as the natural world shows us, it's effective! It's especially ...[text shortened]... rong (or whether there is a great urgency in preventing some action from happening again)
When I was small (very small) like all very small children I could occasionally throw a
tantrum and be completely beyond reason until one of my parents delivered a quick
smack to bring me back to reality and remind me that I needed to pay attention to them.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. It's not cruel and its effective where almost nothing else is.
What I cannot condone in any way shape or form is the use of corporal Punishment where
you beat the child (use a cane, a belt, a slipper, whatever) for 'being naughty' as a punishment.
A quick smack to bring a kid back to reality before telling them off or sending them to their room or
whatever is fine.
Using violence AS a punishment.... Very not fine.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeim pretty much against it. the thought of being violent towards as child horrifies me. there are other methods to deal with children having tantrums. a child needs to be taught how to deal with their emotions rather being forced to 'snap' out of it. however im not sure i would force my opinion on this matter onto other parents.
To my mind there are two things here.
When I was small (very small) like all very small children I could occasionally throw a
tantrum and be completely beyond reason until one of my parents delivered a quick
smack to bring me back to reality and remind me that I needed to pay attention to them.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. It's not c ...[text shortened]... hem to their room or
whatever is fine.
Using violence AS a punishment.... Very not fine.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by Agergdoesnt a sharp bark/shout have the same effect on a child. is it necessary to use violence?
For all our mental sophistication when we mature, we are still animals. Almost every other human chastises its young with a short, sharp, and non-permanent shock when said young is doing something "bad". That we don't (because a committee has decided we shouldn't) is to betray the simple fact that as the natural world shows us, it's effective! It's especially ...[text shortened]... rong (or whether there is a great urgency in preventing some action from happening again)
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm not sure about this.
To my mind there are two things here.
When I was small (very small) like all very small children I could occasionally throw a
tantrum and be completely beyond reason until one of my parents delivered a quick
smack to bring me back to reality and remind me that I needed to pay attention to them.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. It's not c ...[text shortened]... hem to their room or
whatever is fine.
Using violence AS a punishment.... Very not fine.
I might use the type of smack you are suggesting where the situation related to something which might otherwise result in severe danger to the child. E.g. the child runs out into the road despite your constant warnings on the matter.
It is the rarity value that gives it the force to make the child to remember for the future. And if they don't remember, you may not have the chance to use the naughty step at all in future. But it would only be a 'lesser of two evils' things.
But in the case of a tantrum, I would not use this or see any reason for it, as I haven't experienced a tantrum in my son that could not be dealt in other ways, and he can throw some pretty major ones.
Children are not all the same. That is one size does not fit all. The parent is not given an owners manual for each make and model and must learn what works best for both parents and children within the family. Some people do write disciline manuals though that might help. I would not push any particular method however, because the old saysing is spare the rod and spoil the child. I don't think this means to be cruel in discipline, it just means to be firm like a rod is firm.
02 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieI don't think so...if the sharp bark/shout carries no implicit threat of (transient yet still unpleasant) pain, then as a naughty child (too young to be reasoned with) trying to inflict copious levels of pain onto my younger brother (as little bastards do!) it might momentarily distract my intention, but then I'll just regain my composure and carry on where I left off.
doesnt a sharp bark/shout have the same effect on a child. is it necessary to use violence?
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI agree.
To my mind there are two things here.
When I was small (very small) like all very small children I could occasionally throw a
tantrum and be completely beyond reason until one of my parents delivered a quick
smack to bring me back to reality and remind me that I needed to pay attention to them.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. It's not c ...[text shortened]... hem to their room or
whatever is fine.
Using violence AS a punishment.... Very not fine.
It's a phase out, early parenting technique used for shock and not to deliver pain.
I'd rather give 'em a quick, sharp reminder not to play on the road rather than a car.
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsGood point.
Children are not all the same. That is one size does not fit all. The parent is not given an owners manual for each make and model and must learn what works best for both parents and children within the family. Some people do write disciline manuals though that might help. I would not push any particular method however, because the old saysing is spare th ...[text shortened]... don't think this means to be cruel in discipline, it just means to be firm like a rod is firm.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieMy father stopped hitting me when I told him I would hit him back, and he knew I was serious and big enough for it to be a problem for him. It wasn't a threat, it was a fact that he needed to know. (My mother had sent me to boxing class at the YMCA -- smart woman, she claimed it was so I could defend myself from schoolyard bullies, which it did help me do once or twice.)
capital punishment seems to have divided the atheist and christians on here. im wondering where everybody falls when it comes to corporal punishment. im guessing the battle lines will be slightly more mixed.
im specifically thinking about corporal punishment and children, should it be allowed at home and to what extent, what about schools, should the police be able to rough up anti-social kids in the street?
I was off the rails behavior-wise at that time of my life. He said he didn't know what else to do except send me to "reform school" which would have been worse. After that we talked through what was going on and got along much better and my behavior improved.
I raised a daughter with no corporal punishment and she is a gem. My sister did the same. However, somebody said every situation is different so I won't judge. Maybe if you are using corporal punishment, give another approach a try. A child's moral development (doing the right thing) goes through stages but can get stuck at the reward/punishment stage if no one helps them grow past it. Your discipline can go through stages too.
Originally posted by stellspalfieParents who stoop to corporal punishment are simply too ignorant and/or lazy to do otherwise. Whatever excuses they make up for themselves to "justify" it are rationalizations.
capital punishment seems to have divided the atheist and christians on here. im wondering where everybody falls when it comes to corporal punishment. im guessing the battle lines will be slightly more mixed.
im specifically thinking about corporal punishment and children, should it be allowed at home and to what extent, what about schools, should the police be able to rough up anti-social kids in the street?
Originally posted by JS357I guess that you would also not interpret the statement of Jesus to turn the other cheek to mean do not defend yourself in a fight like Obama and the JWs seem to do? Not to imply that Obama pays any attention to Jesus anyway.
My father stopped hitting me when I told him I would hit him back, and he knew I was serious and big enough for it to be a problem for him. It wasn't a threat, it was a fact that he needed to know. (My mother had sent me to boxing class at the YMCA -- smart woman, she claimed it was so I could defend myself from schoolyard bullies, which it did help me do once shment stage if no one helps them grow past it. Your discipline can go through stages too.
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieThere is nothing wrong with a swift swat on the butt to get a child's attention. You can't reason with a 2-yr old. The worry is that will become a regular form of discipline, which it shouldn't. If it's getting to that point, then the child has behavior problems, which means the parent is screwing up (probably by being too lenient, giving in to temper tantrums, failing to distinguish between the legitimate needs of a child and the mere wants of a child). You have to start establishing rules very, very early. You don't negotiate with children until they can deliberate at least somewhat rationally (i.e., when they're in their early 30's).
capital punishment seems to have divided the atheist and christians on here. im wondering where everybody falls when it comes to corporal punishment. im guessing the battle lines will be slightly more mixed.
im specifically thinking about corporal punishment and children, should it be allowed at home and to what extent, what about schools, should the police be able to rough up anti-social kids in the street?
That aside, my mom used guilt more effectively than any violence. My father hit me once and then started crying and never did it again. My grandfather, however, would regularly tell me to "pick your switch". Now, do you think I was better behaved at home, or at my grandparents' house? 🙂
03 Nov 12
My view on the subject is that it is effective but is also the lazy way out. It also has downsides:
1. Its effect tends to be less lasting than discussion.
2. It can have diminishing returns over time (as almost all punishment based systems do) resulting in the need for harsher methods with time.
3. It teaches the child that he/she must not do something because they will be punished and not why it is wrong to do something.
So generally, my conclusion is that it may be justified when you don't have the time/energy to do better, or when the child is too young to be easily reasoned with. However if you want to be the best parent there is, and have the time/effort required to do so, you can usually avoid it by preventing the undesirable behaviour in the first place or dealing with it more effectively. The best techniques include setting a good example, and persuading your child to want to be good.