Spanking

[gibson]

This is so esoc, one person comes with a logical argument backed up by facts, gets countered by word salads and anecdotal evidence.

[momuuu]

This is so esoc, one person comes with a logical argument backed up by facts, gets countered by word salads and anecdotal evidence.

And this is so typically gibson. You have an opinion and then completely fail to properly read and understand presented arguments to then in turn launch a personal atatck on those that disagree with you.

[gibson]

You think I failed to read properly when in fact I haven't read any of your novels in this thread. You don't even know who I'm talking about, for all you know you could be the former person in my statement. And personal attack, where in 25 word statement is a personal attack? Fucking snowflakes man.

[chronojj]

I tried reading studies when it began getting close to starting discipline, but I got very little value out of them due to the contradictions. Studies show positives (or negatives) for both sides - and each study generally looks good on the surface. Hence I determined it all to be pointless, because in the end I was going to have to choose which studies I wanted to believe - in which case my pre-existing bias/opinions were going to help me choose. Obviously Mr. VooDoo found some studies he really likes, which is fine. I have no issue with that; there's more than one way to skin a cat (or discipline a child). We all have to form our opinions based on something.

One thing I've noticed is that Mr. Voodoo likes playing very sentimental games with words (he should try words with friends).

This topic is so troubling because people are, literally, advocating violence against defenceless children. It's absolutely disgusting.

Corporal discipline is not necessarily violence, and even if we assume it is, violence is not necessarily bad. Additionally, the child being defenseless really means nothing, because he is defenseless regardless of the discipline chosen. Unless somehow my kid manages to stack a few chairs on each other in order to get his truck off the bookshelf (why he thought it was a good idea to smash it against the wall, who knows - but I'm sure it had something to do with corporal punishment). If it makes you feel better/helps prove your point, then yes, I advocate brutalizing innocent, angelic children by smashing their delicate butts with a bloodstained plank. Personally, I enjoy every second of the torture, and when not beating my child to a bloody pulp, I spend my time hoping he misbehaves, just so I can brutalize him again. Meanwhile, I excuse my barbaric, demonic behavior as discipline - thus I sleep well at night.

[Goodspeed]

Corporal discipline is not necessarily violence

?

violence is not necessarily bad

Depending on your definition of bad, with all those studies in mind I would say it's very easy to argue that it is bad to use violence against children. Unless that child is 70 years old and named Donald Trump.
You have claimed the studies are cherry-picked and biased multiple times already. You've repeatedly stated you have read studies that found positive effects of corporal punishment. Voodoo asked you to post them...

[chronojj]

Right, it all depends on the definitions - that's my point entirely. Saying sentimental things with the point of making one side look good/bad really means nothing. It's just word games.

For the studies, they exist (not hard to find, we all have the internet at our fingertips), but there's no point in posting them. I don't care what they say and posting them proves nothing. Unless we want to get into a "my penis is bigger than yours" argument, which is basically what providing competing links to studies would be.

On a side note, I never understood why physical pain is seen as such a horrible thing. Any discipline inflicts pain on the child - whether it be physical or psychological. Regardless of the form, discipline results in emotional trauma at the time, even when such punishment is perfectly warranted. Just like the toy on the bookshelf (about the most tame of all discipline) - it can cause great emotional turmoil. Never mind the fact he has a multitude of other toys he can play with, in that moment, the removal of that specific toy is a terrible thing - tears incoming. Some would argue that mental abuse is much worse than physical abuse (now there's a whole new debate entirely).

[VooDoo_BoSs]

Right, it all depends on the definitions - that's my point entirely. Saying sentimental things with the point of making one side look good/bad really means nothing. It's just word games.

For the studies, they exist (not hard to find, we all have the internet at our fingertips), but there's no point in posting them. I don't care what they say and posting them proves nothing. Unless we want to get into a "my penis is bigger than yours" argument, which is basically what providing competing links to studies would be.

That's not the case at all. You are making a claim without any evidence to back it up. I am backing up my claims with science. I don't care how you define "good", but I challenge you to find one study that shows corporal punishment leads to any benefits no matter how you define it. The truth is, you are wrong. You have your own personal reasons for believing that spanking is ok - and you have set an impossible mental hurdle that nothing could possibly convince you otherwise. This is unfortunate, but also how the world is on a range of topics from vaccines and circumcision to global warming.

You have somehow convinced yourself there are two sides to this argument - there are not. If there are, please present the other side as I am willing to be convinced this is not harmful.

On a side note, I never understood why physical pain is seen as such a horrible thing. Any discipline inflicts pain on the child - whether it be physical or psychological. Regardless of the form, discipline results in emotional trauma at the time, even when such punishment is perfectly warranted. Just like the toy on the bookshelf (about the most tame of all discipline) - it can cause great emotional turmoil. Never mind the fact he has a multitude of other toys he can play with, in that moment, the removal of that specific toy is a terrible thing - tears incoming. Some would argue that mental abuse is much worse than physical abuse (now there's a whole new debate entirely).

The science is very clear on this.

Please read my post on the effects of spanking on the brain. Release of stress hormones do affect the brain development, particularly the hippocampus and amygdala. To a certain extent, other stresses also affect the brain development and there have been studies showing that severe verbal abuse can lead to similar stresses (though, by definition, shouting / screaming at a small child can be a violent act as you are clearly using physical intimidation and the implicit threat of violence).

Regardless, prompting crying by taking away a toy may or may not cause damage - there is no scientific consensus. The science on spanking, however, is very clear, which is why many people here are arguing so strongly against it.

[jgals]

It's quite simple. Hitting your kid means failing. It means you were not able to educate him without resorting to violence and pain. It's very unhealthy and despicable.
Think about it: a full-grown person would need to use his physical advantage over a young kid to get respected... instead of using reasoning and logic. How fucked up is that? It's lazy, it's wrong, it's useless. That's what I call bad parents.
It's the same as teachers who need to yell at the kids and give detentions, instead of having a natural authority and charism that gains the respect of the kids. We all had this kind of teacher, and we all know they suck.

Trying to inspire respect and discipline through fear is anyway not the way to go. It will never result in anything constructive, compared to an actual discussion.
Of course, it can happen that parents don't control themselves and actually hurt the kid unintentionally. It still sucks, but it's understandable. Can happen to anyone to lose control temporarily. But doing it on purpose, because it would be "good for the kid" or "life is hard" or whatever bullshit, is just plain stupid.
The line can be hard to draw. I remember my dad once grabbing me and holding me against the wall. It doesn't really hurt, but it's still violence (psychologically more than physically). Should it be allowed or not? Maybe, maybe not. At the end of the day, it won't prevent parents from doing it anyway.

yea my mom actually said this on mothers day yesterday while i was in the car with her. She said she spanked me once or twice when i was a kid but I dont remember that. I know my dad did once or twice. She basically said that at that moment that you spank your child you have failed as a parent, and you know it, and it is the worst feeling . Because you know that you have lost an argument to a 3 year old or child of any age and in your desperation its all you can do.

[gibson]

Glad to see this topic revived

[Snuden]

I have never spanked my daughters, not even during them freaking out, when told they can'y have lollipops for breakfast.
My gf's though, is an entirely different matter.

[gamevideo113]

It's quite simple. Hitting your kid means failing. It means you were not able to educate him without resorting to violence and pain. It's very unhealthy and despicable.
Think about it: a full-grown person would need to use his physical advantage over a young kid to get respected... instead of using reasoning and logic. How fucked up is that? It's lazy, it's wrong, it's use unless. That's what I call bad parents.
It's the same as teachers who need to yell at the kids and give detentions, instead of having a natural authority and charism that gains the respect of the kids. We all had this kind of teacher, and we all know they suck.

Trying to inspire respect and discipline through fear is anyway not the way to go. It will never result in anything constructive, compared to an actual discussion.
Of course, it can happen that parents don't control themselves and actually hurt the kid unintentionally. It still sucks, but it's understandable. Can happen to anyone to lose control temporarily. But doing it on purpose, because it would be "good for the kid" or "life is hard" or whatever bullshit, is just plain stupid.
The line can be hard to draw. I remember my dad once grabbing me and holding me against the wall. It doesn't really hurt, but it's still violence (psychologically more than physically). Should it be allowed or not? Maybe, maybe not. At the end of the day, it won't prevent parents from doing it anyway.

yea my mom actually said this on mothers day yesterday while i was in the car with her. She said she spanked me once or twice when i was a kid but I dont remember that. I know my dad did once or twice. She basically said that at that moment that you spank your child you have failed as a parent, and you know it, and it is the worst feeling . Because you know that you have lost an argument to a 3 year old or child of any age and in your desperation its all you can do.

I disagree, and here's why, it's quite simple: kids don't always listen to reason.
One thing they will surely understand is beating, for how unpleasant it might be for both the parent and the child. The line between an occasional spank and abuse is not that clear obviously, but that is another matter.