Spanking

gargleblaster

prinz wrote: »

Playing semantics.

How? The experts you cited said it didn't cause "significant" damage. That means it did cause damage to the child. In cases where parents have tried every other available method and really have no other choice that's understandable.

Yes they can which is why I specifically mentioned raising your voice earlier in the thread in a case of a kid reaching for a hot oven top for example. The sheer change in volume and sharpness of a loud shout NO! would scare them into stopping. However there are those who argue that you shouldn't ever raise your voice to a child. So round and round in circles we go. We're not really discussing inflicting pain as an educational tool either.

Who argues that you should never raise your voice? Robots? Vulcans? That's ridiculous. I could say there are people who say you should never put your child in a time out, but is neither here nor there. The fact is that raising your voice is a way to shock a child away from doing something dangerous, and it doesn't involve hitting. What we're doing now is not going round and round, but discussing what is an acceptable level of violence to use against your child (since some define shouting as a kind of violence).

We employ a police force and armed forces to do the "hitting" in wider society. The legitimate use of force? Ever heard of it? There is no disconnect in logic whatsoever. You may as well ask why you can 'ground' your child, but ever tried 'grounding' a stranger? Oh wait, isn't that what prisons are for essentially? Ever tried putting an adult on the naughty step? I mean same rules should apply no?

Yes, we do allow a police force to hit people, for committing serious crimes. What are parents swatting their kids for? Assaulting people? If the parent is being assaulted by the child then I assure you that I approve of hitting them to stop them in that case.

As for time outs and grounding, yes we do that to adults, we use different means but we do ignore people who hurt us and such. We can't put them on a naughty step but as you've said, the situations are not perfectly analogous.

We can be logical about this if we try. It is possible, I promise.

prinz

Greentopia wrote: »

Bible based. Which straight away writes him off as a credible source IMO.

LOL of course it does. 14 books on parenting, a psychologist for decades... but you can write it all of because of something written on wikipedia no less, a true credible source of information :pac: How about Diana Baumrind? Write her off too? How about writing off the opinion of Francis Collins one of the world's best known geneticists as a credible source on genes because he also happens to be Christian? The arrogance is astounding.

prinz

gargleblaster wrote: »

How? The experts you cited said it didn't cause "significant" damage. That means it did cause damage to the child..

Same person.... no mention of "significant" damage...

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Berkeley - Occasional spanking does not damage a child's social or emotional development, according to a study of long-term consequences in the lives of more than 100 families, reported today (Friday, Aug. 24) by a University of California, Berkeley, psychologist.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]The research presented by Diana Baumrind, who co-authored the study with Elizabeth Owens, both research psychologists at UC Berkeley's Institute of Human Development, calls into question a current claim that any physical punishment is harmful to a child. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]The study separates out parents who use spanking frequently and severely - resulting in evidence of harm - and focuses on those families who occasionally spank their children, a practice that Baumrind calls normal for the population sampled.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]By "spanking," Baumrind refers to striking the child on the buttocks, hands or legs with an open hand without inflicting physical injury and with the intention of modifying the child's behavior. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Baumrind's study also compares spanking with another kind of discipline, namely verbal punishment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]"We found no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment," Baumrind said in an invited address to the American Psychological Association annual meeting today in San Francisco.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]The children of parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly, Baumrind said.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Studies of verbal punishment yielded similar results, in that researchers found correlations just as high, and sometimes higher, for total verbal punishment and harm to the child, as for total physical punishment and harm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]"What really matters," said Baumrind, "is the child rearing context. When parents are loving and firm and communicate well with the child (a pattern Baumrind calls authoritative) the children are exceptionally competent and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as preschoolers."[/FONT]

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html

Happy now?

gargleblaster wrote: »

Who argues that you should never raise your voice? Robots? Vulcans? That's ridiculous

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006395856/qid%3D1139820829/701-0346318-5379563

I consider it ridiculous that someone who spanks their kid even once, is accused of engaging in lazy and bad parenting or disinterested in finding out about other ways of parenting.

gargleblaster wrote: »

We can be logical about this if we try. It is possible, I promise.

Whenever you want to start..

Agent Smith

I was slapped, and I deserved it! I'm 6'3 now and 25, and the sight of the Woden spoon still strikes fear Into me....

gargleblaster

Prinz, you cited one study. That one study was started in 1968, and only included white, middle-class families. Sound rigorous enough to you? It sure doesn't to me.

The reason I made the comment about discussing it logically is because it seems for every analogy made in order to try and understand this, you twist it to some ridiculous extreme to try to dismiss the analogy outright, rather than simply trying to determine what makes it ok to hit children but not the elderly (or the mentally ill, another group which poses difficulties to workers who might very well like to avail themselves of that method of dealing with difficult and unreasonable people).

As for studies, there is a reason spanking is banned in many countries. Take a look at where it's banned. Consider the differences in those places.

I don't consider it ridiculous at all to call spanking lazy parenting, and I don't understand why you seem to be taking that label for the practice so very personally.

As I said I did spank one of my children once. And I wouldn't consider it some kind of attack on my character if someone said that in that event I was using a lazy style of parenting.

I'm not trying to change your mind, just to engage in a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons. It seems like that's not what's wanted by you so with that, I'll bow out of attempting to discuss it with you further.

prinz

gargleblaster wrote: »

Prinz, you cited one study. That one study was started in 1968, and only included white, middle-class families. Sound rigorous enough to you? It sure doesn't to me.

LOL. Good for you, maybe you should get on to UC Berkeley.....

gargleblaster wrote: »

The reason I made the comment about discussing it logically is because it seems for every analogy made in order to try and understand this, you twist it to some ridiculous extreme to try to dismiss the analogy outright,

I've dealt with all of the so called 'analogies' that have been made, none of them had any merit to actually be considered for any length of time.

gargleblaster wrote: »

As for studies, there is a reason spanking is banned in many countries. Take a look at where it's banned.

Take a look at where it isn't.

gargleblaster wrote: »

I don't consider it ridiculous at all to call spanking lazy parenting, and I don't understand why you seem to be taking that label for the practice so very personally.

I'm not taking it personally, I'm objecting to the stupidity behind it... It's a complete and utter non-sequitir.

Dudess

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Quick question..

If another person saw your child behaving badly, would it be ok if they smacked your child?

I'm guessing that most people will say no.

Well obviously not, because they're not the child's parent. And other methods should be attempted before smacking - as we're saying, ad nauseum, it isn't the first course most people wish to take.

Greentopia

prinz wrote: »

LOL of course it does. 14 books on parenting, a psychologist for decades... but you can write it all of because of something written on wikipedia no less, a true credible source of information :pac: How about Diana Baumrind? Write her off too? How about writing off the opinion of Francis Collins one of the world's best known geneticists as a credible source on genes because he also happens to be Christian? The arrogance is astounding.

Ok, some more links stating he's uses "Christian parenting methods" and biblical scripture- his own site where he states he follow's biblical scripture,
or the Washington Times,
It seems the good doctor, according to his book Parenting by the Book: Biblical Wisdom for Raising your Child, also encourages parents to home-school in order to protect them from the nasty secular ways of American high schools.

Because home-schooling your child is a great way of setting them up with the education they need to achieve the best out of life :rolleyes: snark

Sorry, for me as a freethinker, atheist and strong believer in a secular society and values these beliefs undermine his professional credibility. He doesn't just happen to be a Christian who teaches child psychology, he incorporates his beliefs into his work, so the Francis Collins analogy doesn't follow.
Collins is a Christian but believes in the scientific method, evolution, that the world is 4.5 billion years old and so on.

Diana Baumrind seems to have no such blemish to her credibility and has an interesting body of work. However it's been more than 50 years since she carried out her famous child care research and times change as does society.
I'd like to read more about her research though when I have some time.

prinz

Greentopia wrote: »

It seems the good doctor, according to his book Parenting by the Book: Biblical Wisdom for Raising your Child, also encourages parents to home-school in order to protect them from the nasty secular ways of American high schools..

Did you notice he has also written 10+ other books without such a Christian emphasis?

Greentopia wrote: »

Sorry, for me as a freethinker, atheist and strong believer in a secular society and values these beliefs undermine his professional credibility.

Free thinker? Lol, pull the other one. Some of the most bizarre reasoning I've seen yet. C.S. Lewis wrote books with an overtly Christian emphasis, I am just wondering, does that undermine his credibility as an author?

Greentopia wrote: »

Diana Baumrind seems to have no such blemish to her credibility and has an interesting body of work. However it's been more than 50 years since she carried out her famous child care research and times change as does society..

Actually it's been 40 odd, and hasn't to my knowledge been discredited yet. Funny how the same thing generally isn't brought up when it comes to the Kinsey Report for example.

Shotgun_TEXAS

yep wooden spoon, brush, hurl, hand, ill get a stick off the ditch and threatened wait till your FATHER gets home lol and i can honestly say i deserved it all. How many times did i have to be told to stop Ill leather ya Ill redden yer arse i was always up to mischief some time dangerous so yes it made me cop on like it was mentioned in an earlier post ADHD (or ADD as its called now) didnt exist. I dont have kids but i live with my girlfriend who has two i have never hit them dont have too maybe the odd tip on the arm fingers out of your mouth stop stretching your clothes you know the drill the girlfriend cant handle them at times all i have to do is raise my voice and you will hear yes daddy yes daddy they love me and i love them i remember what i was like at there age so im chilled lol. the young lad loves helping me as soon as he is in from school "have we any work to do today daddy" supposed to go to bed at bed time he sneaks out to the garage to me lol i say you better go in before mam missis you. One time i could have killed him tho he helped me set up the surround sound but early one morning cut the wires so i just explained how dangerous it was even tho it wasnt just incase hes 7.
drunken rantin hear but i do believe in smacking and we live a mile away from my mother and she still threatens me lol "I brought you into this world i can take you out of it son" oh yeah i demonstrated to the kids how the stick works on my mate having a laugh your hands will get it and they started bring in good bating sticks for when there bold FFS i dont smack them prob for them reasons i say thats not on its not repeated. oh and the girlfriend threatens them with im telling TEX lol. sorry for ravin

Greentopia

prinz wrote: »

Did you notice he has also written 10+ other books without such a Christian emphasis?

He became a Christian in the year 2000. Anything after that I would question the credibility of.

prinz wrote: »

Free thinker? Lol, pull the other one. Some of the most bizarre reasoning I've seen yet. C.S. Lewis wrote books with an overtly Christian emphasis, I am just wondering, does that undermine his credibility as an author?

Yes, free thinker. It informs a lot of how I think about things. Makes no odds to me if you don't like my reasoning. I'm not asking you to agree with me.
C.S. Lewis was a writer of fiction, he didn't write books telling parents how to raise their children. Quite different.

prinz wrote: »

Actually it's been 40 odd, and hasn't to my knowledge been discredited yet. Funny how the same thing generally isn't brought up when it comes to the Kinsey Report for example.

You're right, I looked it up and it's 45 years since she wrote her Prototypical Descriptions of 3 parenting styles. Thought it was a few years earlier for some reason. No I haven't come across anything that's discredited it but she does have her critics I believe too.
I believe the Kinsey Report material actually has been open to question because it doesn't it doesn't come up to modern standards of qualitative and quantitative research.

Anyway, bed time for me.

enfant terrible

Fair play to this kid, taste of her own medicine.

"How does that make you feel Mom":D

marcmc5

enfant terrible wrote: »

Fair play to this kid, taste of her own medicine.

"How does that make you feel Mom":D

Ok

leather belt across the bare backside for this little punk methinks

Vinta81

I was more afraid of the tobasco sauce threats than the wooden spoon to be honest.

stovelid

I'm going to paddle the brats just that little bit harder later with all you hand-wringers in mind.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

enfant terrible wrote: »

Fair play to this kid, taste of her own medicine.

"How does that make you feel Mom":D

Interesting user name.

I'm always of the belief that striking kids makes them more agressieve. I'm not saying that that's why he's aggressive, but he has learnt the message that, if you disagree with someone, you hit them.

I also find it interesting that the kid's initial complaint - that his Mum was playing music too loud - was completely ignored, and then she told him to be quiet...