UFOsarereal
Active member
just thought this should be re-iterated after all the judgement you're passing, haha.
Peaceful Parenting
- Thread starter JamesR
- Start date
charmander
Active member
Bullshit, my parents beat me and im gonna beat my kids, how else are you gonna teach em about real consequences?
CrotchKiller
Active member
amazing
manutdsaol
Member
What.the.fuck.
Sno.
Active member
First of all-
as someone stated later in this thread, you should not compare children with
women and minorities. Children should not have the same rights as adults.
Second of
all- kids need to learn to respect their parents. When they step out of line,
parents need to take measures to ensure that children know what acceptable
behavoir is and what isn't.
Based on how
you responded to Rachy, I can see that you lack respect. You don't say things
like that about other people's parents- you just don't. What gives you the
right to judge the methods of others? You don't have children, and you haven't
walked in their shoes.
Additionally,
you apparently don't even think it's acceptable to threaten children with
withholding toys. What forms of discipline do you support? Now parents can’t even take away their
children’s privileges? Children are not entitled to TV, video games, toys,
allowances, etc. These are privileges that should be earned.
You have yet
to suggest what you think should be used in lieu of threats or spanking. The video posted of the child hitting his
mother is a good example of what children can be like when you don’t establish
yourself as the alpha. The child feels like he should have the same rights as
his mother. She allows him to take the dominant, alpha role. This child has not
been given boundaries. If my child slapped me, I’d clean his clock, and trust
me- he wouldn’t do it again.
And no, this
wouldn’t be hypocritical, because parents have the right to discipline their children.
Children do not have the right to discipline their parents.
feihlination
Active member
its a question of fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS.
problem is, at some point children can understand logic. probably earlier than you give them credit for.
and you say yourself that you didnt do things wrong because you feared the punishment. idk about you, but i knew whats right and i knew whats wrong without getting spanked, hit or whatever. a 6 yr old knows that it isnt allowed to steal some toy from a friend and a respectable parent will show the kid in other ways. you only didnt kill your siblings because you feared the punishment, not because youve been made aware enough how your negative actions hurt the people around you. spanking a kid that is so young that it doesnt understand its actions is like hitting a stone because you banged your toe on it.
i feel like a kid that gets educated on how its actions "change" its environment and a kid that was raised to feel sympathy and empathy towards others (pretty pussy-esque, right) will not do as much shit wrong as another kid that never gets told a thing but gets hit everytime he does something wrong.
BOTTOM LINE: if you are a respectable (from the eye of the children) parent, you dont need violence to show them whats right or wrong.
IRRELEVANT RANT: and not to be disrespectful towards americans, but this is one of these issues (like the creationism "debate") that is really just an "discussion" for you. jamesR represents the well-educated fraction on this site and has to fight left and right for a perfectly acceptable and civilized opinion, while you other guys try to preserve stone-age morals and traditions, "just because it always worked" or "because i dont want my kids to become such pussies as you guys" or blablablabla.
and here is a recent article about a study that tested for a lot of variables to make sure the influence can be attributed to the use of corporal punishment:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
problem is, at some point children can understand logic. probably earlier than you give them credit for.
and you say yourself that you didnt do things wrong because you feared the punishment. idk about you, but i knew whats right and i knew whats wrong without getting spanked, hit or whatever. a 6 yr old knows that it isnt allowed to steal some toy from a friend and a respectable parent will show the kid in other ways. you only didnt kill your siblings because you feared the punishment, not because youve been made aware enough how your negative actions hurt the people around you. spanking a kid that is so young that it doesnt understand its actions is like hitting a stone because you banged your toe on it.
i feel like a kid that gets educated on how its actions "change" its environment and a kid that was raised to feel sympathy and empathy towards others (pretty pussy-esque, right) will not do as much shit wrong as another kid that never gets told a thing but gets hit everytime he does something wrong.
BOTTOM LINE: if you are a respectable (from the eye of the children) parent, you dont need violence to show them whats right or wrong.
IRRELEVANT RANT: and not to be disrespectful towards americans, but this is one of these issues (like the creationism "debate") that is really just an "discussion" for you. jamesR represents the well-educated fraction on this site and has to fight left and right for a perfectly acceptable and civilized opinion, while you other guys try to preserve stone-age morals and traditions, "just because it always worked" or "because i dont want my kids to become such pussies as you guys" or blablablabla.
and here is a recent article about a study that tested for a lot of variables to make sure the influence can be attributed to the use of corporal punishment:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
feihlination
Active member
if you only take this away from my post, please go on. i was just referring to another debate that was ended decades ago in several european countries but apparently still brings up emotions in the US.
obviously not all americans believe in creationism, and not all americans spank/hit their kids. i never said so anyways.
related could be just the fact that no matter how many people "believe" in something, it still can be wrong and we as a society have the duty to develop new rules, a new society that can constantly question and overcome tradition and antiquated morals.
burning witches was pretty fashionable for a few centuries, but it was inherently wrong. holding slaves, owning people like a piece of furniture or a car was abolished in western countries only some hundreds of years ago. treating women like second class people is just as wrong and is rightfully outlawed (although some people still think its cool to do so). so now there are children, developing humans, why would you ever feel the need to spank/hit them? and why would you ever defend that? i feel like SOME parents are feeling pretty good when they can show their power. wouldnt say the majority enjoys it, but still they are lacking the parental skills and patience to educate their kids without hitting them.
obviously not all americans believe in creationism, and not all americans spank/hit their kids. i never said so anyways.
related could be just the fact that no matter how many people "believe" in something, it still can be wrong and we as a society have the duty to develop new rules, a new society that can constantly question and overcome tradition and antiquated morals.
burning witches was pretty fashionable for a few centuries, but it was inherently wrong. holding slaves, owning people like a piece of furniture or a car was abolished in western countries only some hundreds of years ago. treating women like second class people is just as wrong and is rightfully outlawed (although some people still think its cool to do so). so now there are children, developing humans, why would you ever feel the need to spank/hit them? and why would you ever defend that? i feel like SOME parents are feeling pretty good when they can show their power. wouldnt say the majority enjoys it, but still they are lacking the parental skills and patience to educate their kids without hitting them.
bdarb207
Active member
^ sorry to misinterpret your post. As for people disregarding the studies posted I don't disagree that the study shows what your saying. But I'm saying like any study it's easy to get any desirable result. Not saying they did here I'm just saying that I don't entirely agree with the study because when you lump someone who gives a child's bottom a tap to give them a slight shock with someone who beats their kids you are not going to get an answer I agree with. Is beating your kids okay? Absolutely not. Is a smack on the bottom beating your kids? Sorry I must disagree with you here. Raising a child is a unique experience and should be judged on a case by case basis. Does every child need to be spanked, of course not. When you take a thing like parenting and try to make a uniform appropriate way to do it, it's just not reasonable. Again, I do not believe beating children is ever appropriate, but spanking is just not beating your kid regardless of what study you show me.
I haven't been reading this whole thread, but....I'm a parent. Of a 6 & 8 yr old. You are absolutely wrong. Children are so incredibly smart. They understand as long as its explained (and they're raised this way). I have never once had to lay a hand on either of my children. They are well behaved, have their moments, but in the end, they understand.
I was spanked as a child. I feel that was the easy way out for my frustrated mom. I think I would have rebelled less if my parents didn't spank me and took the time to talk to me.
And I'm not saying you should coddle your child. But you don't have to act like they're morons simply because they are children.
My kids understand that I am the boss. There's no getting around that.
They understand that if they misbehave in public, there will be consequences which does not include being hit.
If they wanna have a temper tantrum at home, they're more than welcome to do so in the privacy of their own room. And once they're done, we talk about it and move on with our lives.
So far, it works for me. And my kids get it. They're behaved.
I was spanked as a child. I feel that was the easy way out for my frustrated mom. I think I would have rebelled less if my parents didn't spank me and took the time to talk to me.
And I'm not saying you should coddle your child. But you don't have to act like they're morons simply because they are children.
My kids understand that I am the boss. There's no getting around that.
They understand that if they misbehave in public, there will be consequences which does not include being hit.
If they wanna have a temper tantrum at home, they're more than welcome to do so in the privacy of their own room. And once they're done, we talk about it and move on with our lives.
So far, it works for me. And my kids get it. They're behaved.
TimRiley
Active member
I am a Dad of a 2 1/2 yr old. I use a love and logic approach, and will continue this method as she gets older. We teach her there are good and bad decisions. Good decisions have positive results. Bad decisions have consequences for their actions. I believe this helps the child learn and understand more why something is wrong versus yelling and hitting them. One of the rules of our house is you never harm yourself or cause harm to others.
shocker611
Active member
I got beat and I turned out fine.... 
ryano
Active member
i do agree with this. but however, i do believe they need to know that there will be a "most severe" punishment worse than a time out, no toys, etc. if they continually break the rules.
its like telling a child "dont touch the fire" they ask why, you say "because it will hurt." next thing you know they are touching the fire and getting burnt. after that, they will not touch the fire.
carry that on into discipline. you tell your child do not do that. they ask why. you say your reason and that if they do it again, they will have a time out. they go do it. so you make them sit. but then they go do it again. repeat. and on the last time, you say dont do that. they say why, so you tell them the reason, and if they do it again they will be spanked. if they've been spanked before, they will already know that it is not pleasant, and usually not do it again.
i'm not saying every punishment should be spanking. not at all. but there is a time and place for it. and when done correctly and lovingly, it is beneficial for the child.
again. i was spanked as a child when i really was being a goober. but i also had PLENTY of time outs, being grounded, etc etc etc. but when i really broke my parents rules, like beat up my brother, or lied or whatever is/was an action deemed "really bad", and usually not the first time around, but i would get spanked. and it did teach me, the more you break the law the worse the consequences.
its like telling a child "dont touch the fire" they ask why, you say "because it will hurt." next thing you know they are touching the fire and getting burnt. after that, they will not touch the fire.
carry that on into discipline. you tell your child do not do that. they ask why. you say your reason and that if they do it again, they will have a time out. they go do it. so you make them sit. but then they go do it again. repeat. and on the last time, you say dont do that. they say why, so you tell them the reason, and if they do it again they will be spanked. if they've been spanked before, they will already know that it is not pleasant, and usually not do it again.
i'm not saying every punishment should be spanking. not at all. but there is a time and place for it. and when done correctly and lovingly, it is beneficial for the child.
again. i was spanked as a child when i really was being a goober. but i also had PLENTY of time outs, being grounded, etc etc etc. but when i really broke my parents rules, like beat up my brother, or lied or whatever is/was an action deemed "really bad", and usually not the first time around, but i would get spanked. and it did teach me, the more you break the law the worse the consequences.
Mike-O
Active member
On topic, the only time I was hurt in any way by my parents was my mom pulling me by my ear inside from the yard to our summer cabin because I was fighting with my cousin when I was 8 or 9, after that she told me that this behaviour wouldn't fly any more. Never been hurt, threatened with violence or spanked otherwise.
I personally feel that if a parent has to be physical with their child to get their point across, isn't doing a very good job to begin with.
TimRiley
Active member
'Don't touch the fire" we consider this an affordable bad decision so to speak. We told you, you burned your finger. The consequence is the burn and they learn from this. This makes their action the bad guy, not you yelling at them or spanking them which I believe teaches them don't do it or Daddy gets mad. We do use increased levels of punishment if she "tests the water, time out, toy jail, no story time etc... This has worked for us so far.
By no means am I saying we have parenting all figured out, we are just trying to teach her values at a young age. Hopefully this sticks with her as she gets older and begins to make more choices on her own.
By no means am I saying we have parenting all figured out, we are just trying to teach her values at a young age. Hopefully this sticks with her as she gets older and begins to make more choices on her own.
Sno.
Active member
You have a 2.5 year old girl. It sounds like your parenting methods are working for you. However, not every parent deals with the same situations. Take some of the children on doctor Phil that have rage tantrums and threaten their mothers and siblings with knives. You might still say that you would never spank your child, and that could be true- but do you really feel that you have the right to look down on and judge parents who are in these situations? Not every child is the same, and some parents have more difficult children to deal with than others.
I'm not a parent but my brother is a sociopath and I've seen first-hand parents trying to raise a child that they themselves are scared of. He's 30 now and it is still an everyday struggle. This story belongs in an entirely different thread, though.
As far as the studies go-- you can google "studies against spanking" or you can google "studies for spanking." I see studies that show spanked children have lower IQs-- I also see studies that show spanked children have higher IQs and are more likely to succeed. You can find arguments in both directions. And to reiterate what everyone else has said, there's a big difference between spanking and beating.
I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all to parenting. I think there are children that have been spanked, that could probably have benefited more from a different approach. I also think there are children that weren't spanked, that could have benefited from being spanked.
I'm not a parent but my brother is a sociopath and I've seen first-hand parents trying to raise a child that they themselves are scared of. He's 30 now and it is still an everyday struggle. This story belongs in an entirely different thread, though.
As far as the studies go-- you can google "studies against spanking" or you can google "studies for spanking." I see studies that show spanked children have lower IQs-- I also see studies that show spanked children have higher IQs and are more likely to succeed. You can find arguments in both directions. And to reiterate what everyone else has said, there's a big difference between spanking and beating.
I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all to parenting. I think there are children that have been spanked, that could probably have benefited more from a different approach. I also think there are children that weren't spanked, that could have benefited from being spanked.
JamesR
Active member
snobunny: Can I ask you something? Did you examine all of the available evidence in the field before you settled on this stance, or was it built from your own experiences and what you've imbibed from those around you? Do you have any scientific evidence to support your opinions, or do they just feel right? Those questions go to a few other people as well.
Because the thing is snobunny, you're directly opposed to the science. Science isn't based on single papers. You can find arguments in support of every view. That's why it's so important to be well versed in the literature and understand what the consensus among scientists is- and you're on the wrong side.
ashley and TimRiley: Not that it means anything coming from me, but I can't tell you enough how much I respect and admire the decisions you've made in raising your children. Everyone always talks about how to achieve a better world through this religion or that political party, but I believe what you two are doing is where real change comes from. Thank you.
Because the thing is snobunny, you're directly opposed to the science. Science isn't based on single papers. You can find arguments in support of every view. That's why it's so important to be well versed in the literature and understand what the consensus among scientists is- and you're on the wrong side.
ashley and TimRiley: Not that it means anything coming from me, but I can't tell you enough how much I respect and admire the decisions you've made in raising your children. Everyone always talks about how to achieve a better world through this religion or that political party, but I believe what you two are doing is where real change comes from. Thank you.
DOSE.
Active member
While I agree with this thread, I feel that lower IQ scores are due to uneducated children that come from uneducated parents. And you know that the parents were uneducated since they're fucking retarded enough to hit their kids. Also, decreased self control is clearly because the kid learns that hitting to solve your problems is ok, which it's not.
Sno.
Active member
I never did say whether I was for or against spanking. I'm for allowing parents to choose for themselves.
You say I'm on the wrong side, but I never did pick a side- whether or not I spank my own children is something I will decide when I become a parent. Until then, I haven't been there, so I cannot say what I would do. However, I don't judge other parents for their methods.
and- nature vs nurture is an argument that continues to be scientifically debated.
You say I'm on the wrong side, but I never did pick a side- whether or not I spank my own children is something I will decide when I become a parent. Until then, I haven't been there, so I cannot say what I would do. However, I don't judge other parents for their methods.
and- nature vs nurture is an argument that continues to be scientifically debated.
Sno.
Active member
like I said- you can find scientific evidence in either direction. What I have found, though, is that everything I can find online does differentiate physical abuse from spanking. You do not. And no, I did not search far and wide for this article-- it came up on the top of google. Are you going to reply with some reason that this scientific study is BS and any that you link are the only ones with any real merit?
A. Reviews of Scientific Studies on Physical Discipline
2. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment
and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis.
1. Executive summary of Larzelere & Kuhn (2005) meta-analysis.Clinical Child and Family Psychology(1), 1-37.http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0x4468k255187qg/
This is the most current and up-to-date review of the scientific studies on child outcomes ofnonphysical punishment in one study. See the full meta-analysis or its executive summary above
corporal punishment. This is the only scientific review that
a. compares the child outcomes of corporal punishment vs. alternative disciplinary tactics
that parents could use instead,
b. distinguishes among the outcomes of four types of corporal punishment (overly severe,
predominant usage, customary spanking, and conditional spanking [which is optimal]), or
c. corrects for pre-existing differences in outcomes, by comparing outcomes of corporal
punishment with alternative disciplinary tactics.
The outcomes of corporal punishment compared unfavorably with alternatives only when used
too severely or as the primary disciplinary method. The optimal usage, called conditional
spanking, led to better child outcomes than 10 of 13 disciplinary tactics, generally with 2- to 6-
year-old children. This shows that the optimal use of nonabusive spanking is to enforce milder
disciplinary tactics when children are defiant. Only one alternative (Roberts’ room time out) has
been shown to reduce defiance in pre-delinquents as effectively as conditional spanking, and that
alternative would also be banned by some extreme anti-spanking laws that ban all use of force to
correct children’s behavior. Such extreme bans would thereby prohibit some of the most
effective psychological treatments for young pre-delinquent children and for physical child
abusers (e.g., Parent-Child Interaction Therapy). The review also found that the outcomes of
customary spanking did not compare either favorably or unfavorably with any alternative
disciplinary tactic, except that customary spanking reduced substance abuse more than
for more details.
3. Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of non-abusive and customary physical punishment
by parents: An updated literature review.
more here: http://humansciences.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/nztabconts.47.pdf
A. Reviews of Scientific Studies on Physical Discipline
2. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment
and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis.
1. Executive summary of Larzelere & Kuhn (2005) meta-analysis.Clinical Child and Family Psychology(1), 1-37.http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0x4468k255187qg/
This is the most current and up-to-date review of the scientific studies on child outcomes ofnonphysical punishment in one study. See the full meta-analysis or its executive summary above
corporal punishment. This is the only scientific review that
a. compares the child outcomes of corporal punishment vs. alternative disciplinary tactics
that parents could use instead,
b. distinguishes among the outcomes of four types of corporal punishment (overly severe,
predominant usage, customary spanking, and conditional spanking [which is optimal]), or
c. corrects for pre-existing differences in outcomes, by comparing outcomes of corporal
punishment with alternative disciplinary tactics.
The outcomes of corporal punishment compared unfavorably with alternatives only when used
too severely or as the primary disciplinary method. The optimal usage, called conditional
spanking, led to better child outcomes than 10 of 13 disciplinary tactics, generally with 2- to 6-
year-old children. This shows that the optimal use of nonabusive spanking is to enforce milder
disciplinary tactics when children are defiant. Only one alternative (Roberts’ room time out) has
been shown to reduce defiance in pre-delinquents as effectively as conditional spanking, and that
alternative would also be banned by some extreme anti-spanking laws that ban all use of force to
correct children’s behavior. Such extreme bans would thereby prohibit some of the most
effective psychological treatments for young pre-delinquent children and for physical child
abusers (e.g., Parent-Child Interaction Therapy). The review also found that the outcomes of
customary spanking did not compare either favorably or unfavorably with any alternative
disciplinary tactic, except that customary spanking reduced substance abuse more than
for more details.
3. Larzelere, R. E. (2000). Child outcomes of non-abusive and customary physical punishment
by parents: An updated literature review.
more here: http://humansciences.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/nztabconts.47.pdf
JamesR
Active member
That's old news (2007) and an excerpt from a meta-analysis. It's not BS, but it's out of date, represents a tiny fraction of the literature, and was written by one of the biggest proponents of hitting children (which doesn't make it wrong, it's just something to keep in mind).
I don't think I communicated well in my last post. It's not looking far and wide that's important, it's looking far and wide for information, and then reading all of it. Convenience does not imply correctness. That's not a scientific study. That's a review of a study written by the man who performed it, taken from a meta-analysis. That said, it has as much merit as any other source. That's why I said the entire literature has to be taken into account.
Most people in the field disagree with Mr. Larzelere. In fact, he was the only person on the task force put together by the American Psychological Association to determine the effects of spanking who did not conclude that hitting children was ineffective and damaging.
I don't think I communicated well in my last post. It's not looking far and wide that's important, it's looking far and wide for information, and then reading all of it. Convenience does not imply correctness. That's not a scientific study. That's a review of a study written by the man who performed it, taken from a meta-analysis. That said, it has as much merit as any other source. That's why I said the entire literature has to be taken into account.
Most people in the field disagree with Mr. Larzelere. In fact, he was the only person on the task force put together by the American Psychological Association to determine the effects of spanking who did not conclude that hitting children was ineffective and damaging.
Sno.
Active member
you originally said your statistic was from the 90's and then said my 2007 source was dated? You posted nospank.net and then tell me that my study is biased?
Anyway- it doesn't really matter what I post. You said my source was "not BS" but then pretty much called it BS in the rest of your post.
Anyway- it doesn't really matter what I post. You said my source was "not BS" but then pretty much called it BS in the rest of your post.
JamesR
Active member
I believe after I looked it up it was a statistic from 1985 that said ~90% of parents in the USA spank. Time passing does not change the percentage of parents who spanked in 1985. However, the meta-analysis you posted has been rendered less meaningful as time has passed and study after study has gone against Larzelere's conclusions.
The source you provided isn't BS, way you're using it is. Do you have any training in any sciences beyond high school? I don't mean to call you out, but I don't think you understand how science works.
The source you provided isn't BS, way you're using it is. Do you have any training in any sciences beyond high school? I don't mean to call you out, but I don't think you understand how science works.
Bodhisattva_
Active member
Why did you make this thread? Your nlogical analysis of why we shouldn't hit children is lost on NS. You aren't changing any minds.
Casey
Active member
HA. Snobunny is almost 30 and has a BA from MSU and a BS from WSU. I think she understands how science works. I doubt she gives your condescending bullshit much weight, but I just had to put that out there because you've gotten way to high off the stink of your own farts in this thread.
Sno.
Active member
Yes, but you originally used the statistic as relevant to an argument about hitting/spanking today/now. I'm assuming your original post wasn't referring to 1985. I understand that you later admitted your statistic was wrong/dated, but not until you were called out. Although 2007 was 5 years ago, I'm not sure much has changed in the way that "hitting" or spanking a child affects them. Has technology or any other advances between 2007 and 2012 changed the way spanking affects children? You say there has been study after study between 2007 and now that discredit the one from 2007. Please post them.
Additionally, we are not debating on equal terms. As long as you don't differentiate between hitting/physical abuse and spanking, and you lump them together as spanking, then we are not on the same page. The reason I posted that study is because it breaks down corporal punishment and acknowledges that some forms are harmful, but it also differentiates between different forms of spanking and child abuse. From what I've seen in this thread- you do not. From what I've gathered (and correct me if I'm wrong) you consider all forms of spanking/hitting/beating in the same category? If this is the case, we are not debating on like-terms and continuing would be futile.
If the studies that you reference-- the "study after study" proving my source from 2007 invalid, break down corporal punishment and differentiate between spanking and hitting, then I'd love to see the sources. However--if you/your studies don't acknowledge a difference, than our studies/arguments are not apples to apples.
Additionally, we are not debating on equal terms. As long as you don't differentiate between hitting/physical abuse and spanking, and you lump them together as spanking, then we are not on the same page. The reason I posted that study is because it breaks down corporal punishment and acknowledges that some forms are harmful, but it also differentiates between different forms of spanking and child abuse. From what I've seen in this thread- you do not. From what I've gathered (and correct me if I'm wrong) you consider all forms of spanking/hitting/beating in the same category? If this is the case, we are not debating on like-terms and continuing would be futile.
If the studies that you reference-- the "study after study" proving my source from 2007 invalid, break down corporal punishment and differentiate between spanking and hitting, then I'd love to see the sources. However--if you/your studies don't acknowledge a difference, than our studies/arguments are not apples to apples.
JamesR
Active member
My argument is that hitting kids is wrong. If you could let me know how the percentage of parents hitting their kids affects the morality and efficacy of corporal punishment I'd appreciate it, because i just don't see it.
Look, if you don't know how big of a difference 5 years can make in a field, one tied in with the ever escalating sophistication of technology especially related to neurology, I could post 100 studies and it wouldn't make a difference.
I never said that other studies discredited that one. That's not how science works. I said they've made it less meaningful.
I go with the dictionary definition for hitting: striking. Spanking defined as the act of hitting a child with an open palm on their extremities or buttocks.
I consider all hitting bad. But it would be ridiculous to say they're equal. Beating a child with a baseball bat is "worse" than smacking them on their but with an open hand.
I don't want to waste my time, so I'd appreciate if you'd tell me exactly what kind of information it would take to change your mind. Then I'll go find you some sources explaining what you want to see.
Look, if you don't know how big of a difference 5 years can make in a field, one tied in with the ever escalating sophistication of technology especially related to neurology, I could post 100 studies and it wouldn't make a difference.
I never said that other studies discredited that one. That's not how science works. I said they've made it less meaningful.
I go with the dictionary definition for hitting: striking. Spanking defined as the act of hitting a child with an open palm on their extremities or buttocks.
I consider all hitting bad. But it would be ridiculous to say they're equal. Beating a child with a baseball bat is "worse" than smacking them on their but with an open hand.
I don't want to waste my time, so I'd appreciate if you'd tell me exactly what kind of information it would take to change your mind. Then I'll go find you some sources explaining what you want to see.
Sno.
Active member
Well, if you had posted an up-to-date stat, it would have given your argument (at least at first glance) more creditability, as it would have (at least at first glance) implied that many have changed their stance.
You say "a field" as if five years makes an equal difference in any field-- it doesn't. I don't doubt that five years can make a difference in regards to studies on corporal punishment, however, my educational background is not in this field, so I don't know the difference five years can make in a study related to corporal punishment (2007-2012). My question was genuine. Please inform me- I don't doubt that you have read more on this subject than me, in fact- I can guarantee it.
I am not trying to waste anyone's time, but I would be interested in reading some credible studies on how spanking-- as defined under conditional spanking in the article I referenced-- is harmful to the development of children and how it relates to substance abuse, IQ and criminality.
This thread is three pages, but I have only seen you post one source. If you really want to get your message across, post more sources--do so in a manner that isn't arrogant and condescending, and show some respect in regards to other posters' parents. They took their time to post their experiences and opinions in your thread- don't call their parents failures, wretched, or anything along those lines- it's really not in your place, regardless of how you genuinely feel about them.
You say "a field" as if five years makes an equal difference in any field-- it doesn't. I don't doubt that five years can make a difference in regards to studies on corporal punishment, however, my educational background is not in this field, so I don't know the difference five years can make in a study related to corporal punishment (2007-2012). My question was genuine. Please inform me- I don't doubt that you have read more on this subject than me, in fact- I can guarantee it.
I am not trying to waste anyone's time, but I would be interested in reading some credible studies on how spanking-- as defined under conditional spanking in the article I referenced-- is harmful to the development of children and how it relates to substance abuse, IQ and criminality.
This thread is three pages, but I have only seen you post one source. If you really want to get your message across, post more sources--do so in a manner that isn't arrogant and condescending, and show some respect in regards to other posters' parents. They took their time to post their experiences and opinions in your thread- don't call their parents failures, wretched, or anything along those lines- it's really not in your place, regardless of how you genuinely feel about them.
shocker611
Active member
saying parents that beat are uneducated/fucking retarded is very missinformed, personally my dad was a computer scientist, then a nuclear engineer (for nasa), then helped create a worldwide company and still beat me. A lot of it is how they are raised more than anything it seems
ryano
Active member
actually. lets see the dictionary definitions of the two words the so many of you are using completely wrong.
beat·ing/ˈbētiNG/
Noun:
A punishment or assault in which the victim is hit repeatedly.
Pulsation or throbbing, typically of the heart.
spank·ing/ˈspaNGkiNG/
Adjective:
(esp. of a horse or its gait) Lively; brisk: "a spanking trot".
Noun:
An act of slapping, esp. on the buttocks as a punishment for children
i think i can speak for many on here that are for spanking. that none of us are for beating children. there is a HUGE difference. beating, which is an assult on a VICTIM. is FAR different than the spanking, or slapping on the buttocks (or even back of hand) of a child to show them discipline for acting wrongly/breaking rules.
beat·ing/ˈbētiNG/
Noun:
A punishment or assault in which the victim is hit repeatedly.
Pulsation or throbbing, typically of the heart.
spank·ing/ˈspaNGkiNG/
Adjective:
(esp. of a horse or its gait) Lively; brisk: "a spanking trot".
Noun:
An act of slapping, esp. on the buttocks as a punishment for children
i think i can speak for many on here that are for spanking. that none of us are for beating children. there is a HUGE difference. beating, which is an assult on a VICTIM. is FAR different than the spanking, or slapping on the buttocks (or even back of hand) of a child to show them discipline for acting wrongly/breaking rules.