Opinions on spanking children?

[luvsJack]

So, at what age do you stop spanking?

ETS: So, using your line of thought: A 16 year old is "not too old for other methods of discipling, so not too old for spanking either."

Does this make sense to you?

That is up to the individual parent and if they feel they can "spank" a 16 year old and it not become a fight or something more abusive or violent--their business.

oh come on--now you can't be serious??? There are 10 year olds in Jr. High school and you think that it is appropriate to spank them still?? Where does it stop- putting your 17 year old on your lap and spanking them??
No matter what you call it, it is still abuse and unacceptable behavior from a so called adult.

Really? In our schools, jr. high is 7th and 8th grade. 12-14 year olds. (dd is one of the youngest in 7th grade and she is 12). 10 year olds are more around 4th or 5th grade.

I don't put children on my lap to spank.

No, legally it is NOT abuse.

I agree. I don’t agree with spanking on any level. But there does come a point where it is downright perverse and weird for a daddy to hit his daughter on the buttocks.

oh, for pete's sakes. What is preverse is that a father cannot even touch his daughter without being considered a pervert. Pray tell me, what is the difference in a father spanking his daughter on the butt and a mother spanking her son?

Christ on a pony. Spank your kids if you want, don't if you don't. What you do isn't any of my business or anyone else's.

I couldn't possibly care less if you used a paddle on your kids when they are being bad or if you sit them down and have them paint an impression of how they think their being bad made you feel.

Wow, just wow!
This is why so many children are abused physically, emotionally and sexually. Because other people feel that the well being of other children is none of their business!

Spanking does not equal abuse.

As a former child care provider, I reported two families for abuse. I promise you that neither one could have remotely been considered spanking.

I am a firm believer in "it takes a village" and in all adults looking out for the welfare of children. But I also know that there are some things that are up to the individual parent and spanking (spanking--not abusing) or not spanking is one of those things.

 

[bicker]

Rationalizing doesn't diminish the difference between abuse and discipline.

True, but that's because it is unrelated to the the matter. I was replying to your comment about how there are some people who were spanked who "see" no harm in it.

And that's even beyond the fact that people who were spanked don't magically have 20/20 inner-vision and 20/20 societal-vision (as evidenced by the fact that people within that one group vehemently disagree with each other about this issue), so as to fully understand what the spanking did to them and to society.

Conversely, wouldn't it be beneficial to prove that non-physical forms of discipline are better and don't have negative risks attached to them (ie. failure to be able to take negativity later in life)?

Heck yeah that would be nice, but given two approaches, each equally unproven, the one that doesn't involve inflicting pain on someone else prevails.

Even if one is proven more effective than the other, the fact that that more effective method is more violent, itself, discredits it, requiring it to be so much more effective than the non-violent alternative, unless it is proven more effective against all the different aspects of measurement, including the impact on society itself. Generally, even when there is data supporting spanking, it only supports it against very narrow criteria, and ignores myriad other criteria and considerations.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Heck yeah that would be nice, but given two approaches, each equally unproven, the one that doesn't involve inflicting pain on someone else prevails.

Pain can be more then physical. As an example, couldn't emotional harm be caused if you isolate a child in a corner as a form of "non" physical discipline. I mean, maybe that will make them a social invert later in life, unable to socially interact with their peers (which could be very detrimental to their ability to suceed).

I like FireDancer's analogy, it's all about having a tool belt.

 

[bicker]

Pain can be more then physical. As an example, couldn't emotional harm be caused if you isolate a child in a corner as a form of "non" physical discipline.

Absolutely. I have known a lot of parents who simply don't recognize the awesome responsibility that they have obligating them to reconcile their actions against all these various considerations, especially the one you've highlighted here.

 

[Hannathy]

Heck yeah that would be nice, but given two approaches, each equally unproven, the one that doesn't involve inflicting pain on someone else prevails.

All punishment inflicts pain. Or else it isn't punishment. It doesn't have to be physical pain. it can be emotional, physical, monetary, etc.

So that argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Mickey Fliers]

Just to keep the conversation going....

Kids at my son's school still get paddled!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think that it will be the third officially banned topic on the DIS.

 

[bicker]

So that argument doesn't hold water.

Sure it does.

Just to keep the conversation going....

As if that were necessary.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

All punishment inflicts pain. Or else it isn't punishment. It doesn't have to be physical pain. it can be emotional, physical, monetary, etc.

So that argument doesn't hold water.

Agreed.

Sure it does.

Disagree. You said you would choose the one that doesn't inflict pain, but all punishment inflicts some sort of pain as Hannathy so elequently pointed out. So it would be more about choosing which form of pain you wish to inflict.

 

[bicker]

Or rather, about proving that the pain being inflicted produces benefits measurably better than the aggregate of all the negative ramifications from inflicting the pain.

Which is what I said earlier.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Or rather, about proving that the pain being inflicted produces benefits measurably better than the aggregate of all the negative ramifications from inflicting the pain.

Which is what I said earlier.

It would be the aggregate of all possible negative ramifications as the ramifications are no assurity (as FireDancer and myself can attest to) and again, you would need to weigh this for all forms of punishment.

 

[bicker]

No one promised things would be simple, which is why all measures taken to reduce the risk, i.e., administering discipline as much as possible without resorting to inflicting pain, are positive steps.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

No one promised things would be simple, which is why all measures taken to reduce the risk, i.e., administering discipline as much as possible without resorting to inflicting pain, are positive steps.

Which since discipline is defined as punishing by way of correction and training, and we've already covered that all forms of punishment inflict some degree of pain, we have no wait to eliminate or really reduce the risk of pain, rather, we can only choose which form to inflict.

 

[Hannathy]

No one promised things would be simple, which is why all measures taken to reduce the risk, i.e., administering discipline as much as possible without resorting to inflicting pain, are positive steps.

Then you are not disciplining/punishing. Punishment inflicts pain.

You can teach and not inflict pain but if you are punishing you are causing pain of some sort.

 

[bicker]

Incorrect. Discipline is an activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill. Only sometimes does discipline include punishment, and it is not a necessary aspect of discipline.

Perhaps that's part of the problem: Some people think that the only way to achieve discipline is through punishment.

 

[The Pink Cupcake]

Christ on a pony..

Nice

 

[The Pink Cupcake]

Spanking does not equal abuse.

.

So, could a teacher spank a 16 year old student for acting up?

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Incorrect. Discipline is an activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill. Only sometimes does discipline include punishment, and it is not a necessary aspect of discipline.

Perhaps that's part of the problem: Some people think that the only way to achieve discipline is through punishment.

Thank you for taking just one of the definitions provided by Webster...you forgot the other:

"Correction; chastisement; punishment inflicted by way of correction and training"

This definition in partnership with the one provided helps de-generalize the definition.

 

[The Pink Cupcake]

oh, for pete's sakes. What is preverse is that a father cannot even touch his daughter without being considered a pervert.

Where do you spank? A father hitting the butt of his daughter who is old enough to have children of her own is somewhat perverse and downright weird. Same goes for a son.

Again, if you haven't figured out how to discipline your child without hitting by the time they are 10 or so, I don't think the spanking method is working.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

So, could a teacher spank a 16 year old student for acting up?

In many religious based schools, yes, this type of discipline is performed.