CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
First of all you are doing what Leftwing morons do all the time on liberal media. They use careful wording to make the discipline sound like brutal corporal punishment.
You used the wording hit a child, instead of spanking a child. If you don't understand the difference, then why are you on a debate site?
The human race has been spanking our children for thousands of years with great results, and all of a sudden along comes no fault anything goes Progressives and guess what?
All of a sudden spanking a child is considered brutality and abuse of a child. Progressives spew complete hogwash of how spanking a child will cause scars.
LOL, give me a break!
This just feeds into my comments of how weak the Left is on crime and even disciplining our children.
We have fool Leftwing pyscologists who actually say it is better for the parent to go into the bathroom so that the child will be lonely and feel bad about behaving badly.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, I MEAN COME ON! These are the intellectuals of the progressive movement.
Is it worth arguing semantics over two words that essentially mean the same thing? They have different connotations, but in the specific context of this debate, it isn't difficult to work out what they mean. And besides, it's not as though there's never been parents who've been overly violent for the sake of discipline. The line between punishment and child abuse quickly blurs, and even if we aren't referring to the types of people who cross that line, it still doesn't justify that style of parenting once you consider the affects studies have proven that corporal punishment can have on an adolescent's development.
Just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't automatically make it right, especially when the "great results" you talk about are really anything but. Actually, research has shown that children who grow up in homes where corporal punishment is used are more likely to resolve conflicts through aggression, are more likely to develop anxiety or depression, and are more likely to act out defiantly. So while I'm not claiming that spanking your kid is the equivalent to beating them and that those two things are gonna have the same physical and psychological affects, I genuinely don't see how attempting to explain to your child what they did wrong instead of using straightfoward discipline is somehow a radical and weak idea.
Let me repeat what I said. Any person that does not understand the difference between spanking and hitting should not be on a debate site.
Do you have any idea how easily so called "research" can be done cherry picking data to push the results they want?
People with the least amount of intellect should know that to get to the truth, one must see life and see the obvious before them.
I have grown up with a huge extended family, with hundreds of family members that I know have mostly been spanked.
Out of those hundreds of examples, NOT ONE of them ever grew up resolving conflicts with aggression!
No one has ever been arrested. They all have good relationships with their children and parents. They live good moral lives with only one divorce in all the families, far far below national averages.
EXCEPT FOR THE ONE DIVORCE, ALL THE CHILDREN ARE LIVING WITH BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER.
You can sit there and spew so called research which means absolutely NOTHING when cherry picked.
I have lived long enough to have seen the results of what happens to our families when fool Progressives come along and start judging parents who spank their children.
It's been many decades of bleeding heart Liberals pushing their politics and psychology concerning parenting.
Look around at the results. RECORD NUMBERS of broken homes with no fathers. Gang violence from so many children with no fathers at home and no discipline. People like you will try and say these gang members were all beating by their fathers and learned violence as a result. HOGWASH! Most gang members never had a father living with them.
The sickest part about Liberals, Progressives, or Democrats is that they never learn. They are like insecure dysfunctional people who spend their lives trying to tell others how to raise our children even though the evidence shows how failed your philosophy is.
I explained that I know the two words have different connotations. Obviously if you were in a fight, you wouldn't say something like "I spanked them across the face", you would say hit. But in talking about a child, the two terms are more interchangeable, although they generally reference a different level of severity. Regardless, I don't see how someone's ability to form an argument is really dependent on them knowing the definitions of two similar words. Anyone can make a statement like that and present it as the truth, purely based on how the other person arbitrarily structures their sentences. It doesn't speak for the other points that they're making.
Nonetheless, I do understand that data doesn't always reflect the truth, depending on any number of variables such as how the research is conducted, where it's conducted, etc, which is one reason that experiments and surveys are often repeated in similar or drastically different circumstances. And yes, sometimes the person presenting the information doesn't show both sides equally in order to further their own opinion. However, when both the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that corporal punishment has more negative affects than other forms of discipline, it shouldn't be held up as the gold standard of parenting without question.
Despite speaking of biases, you're also just citing your own personal experiences. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because relating things you've witnessed can help convey your perspective better than statistics sometimes, and your opinions are often formed in part because of your background. But with that said, it is hypocritical to talk about how pointless some research is only to cite an article once it supports your argument. It seems as though your own idea of cherry picking is just whenever someone shows a source that contradicts whatever it is you believe.
Speaking of your own family, I never said that every single child who has some form of corporal punishment used on them will turn out the same way. Even if I did, it's near impossible to argue against someone's personal experiences. You can't exactly disprove them, even if you disagree with the point they're used to forward. However, even if every single child in your family grew up just fine, how does that somehow speak for everyone else? Maybe your family strayed from it, but there's still a pattern correlated to what happens when you physically discipline your kids, which can't just be tossed under the rug as left wing propaganda or whatever you wanna call it.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never said that gang members only turn to crime because they learned violence from their fathers. As a matter of fact, I would actually agree with you that part of the reason some children join gangs is because they lack structure at home, but again, that doesn't apply to every family, nor is that the only reason this stuff happens. Hell, it's not even the only reason cited in the article you provided. Some children turn to crime because they want to belong to something, or because they grow up in a more dangerous neighborhood and feel the need for protection. Low socioeconomic status and living in areas of poverty are also contributing factors. I'm not saying that any of this is justified, just that it isn't as straightforward as "liberals and democrats and progressives don't discipline kids properly and they grow up with no respect."
Juvenile crime is more complex than that and it can't just be explained away by a dysfunctional family structure, even though that can contribute to it. I know how difficult it is for single moms and how busy they are, but they aren't incapable of disciplining their kids. And even if they were, how do you conflate fathers leaving their children to a lack of corporal punishment? Respect can be instilled through things other than violence.
First of all, I have never judged any parent who does not want to spank their child. It is their child and they have every right to discipline as they believe best.
I reralize that many kids who were not spanked can also grow up well adjusted and with moral values instilled.
What I HATE is the Left's CONSTANT attack against people who do not tow their poitical correct fanaticism, or some Progressive pyschologist telling every parent how spanking is all of a sudden bad.
HOGWASH to all these arrogant Progressives who think they have all the answers to life, while just the opposite is playing out in our culture as a direct result of Progressive no fault anything goes thinking.
If you don't want to spank your child.... GREAT!
I know the value of spanking and have taught my kids the values of spanking. It sends a very quick and decisive lesson to the child that there are consequences to bad behavior.
It teaches respect for authority which bolds well in their future jobs and how they deal with supervisors and other forms of authority.
When I see out of control children having temper tantrums in public places, I see a child that probably was never spanked after getting home.
For your knowledge, when people such as myself speak to spanking, we are talking about a slap on their rear with enough force to sting a little bit but WITH NO PHYSICAL HARM DONE!
We all know that some parents go overboard when disciplining and do bodily harm. I call that abuse and something I do not agree with.
Most people with common sense understand the difference, but in the PC Progressive world, they lump spanking and abuse together and thereby call parents who spank their children as being abusive.
THESE PEOPLE ARE ARROGANT PC CONTROL EXTREMISTS AND ARE TOTAL MORONS!
These are the same types of people telling parents like me I must allow Transgender boys in my daughter's bathrooms in ALL public schools.
THESE FOOLS CAN GET OUT OF OUR LIVES AND RAISE THEIR OWN KIDS!
Though I may not agree with any kind of physical discipline, I know that there's a difference between spanking and flat out child abuse. I'm not arguing that they're the same thing, just that there's more effective ways to discipline children that don't have the potential to cause them long term mental distress. It's not so much that it's all of a sudden bad as it is that more research is being done on the effects of corporal punishment, and that it's now more widely understood that there's better ways to show your kids how to behave.
Like I said, maybe this has worked for your family in particular, but that usually isn't the case. Even if it does send a quick message to a child that what they did was wrong, what good does that do if they don't understand the rationale behind it?
The children who misbehave in public are likely either too young to understand what they're doing, or they just aren't disciplined period. Corporal punishment actually sometimes leads to more defiance.
Anyways, I think our difference in perspective on this issue more comes down to different experiences than it does anything else, though I will say that there's a big disconnect between this and transgender bathroom rights in schools. The latter is something that affects everyone's children, including the ones who are actually transgender. It's not something you should be concerned about though, no one is going to pretend to be trans just to be able to enter a certain bathroom or changing room. This is off topic though, and it could probably be an entire other debate.
I totally disagree that it is now more widely understood that there are better ways of discipline.
Just because Progressive pyschologists bring their personal non spanking beliefs into these issues means nothing other than their research being biased and therefore worthless.
Why do you suppose judges step down from cases when they are personally involved.
I believe NONE of these studies because I believe they are totaly created to find fault with what they already personally deem wrong.
I guarantee you that pyschologists who believe in spanking would be able to find much more research evidence to the many benefits of spanking.
I believe what I know to be true, not just in my own family, but what I have seen with the break down of our culture since Progressive thought took hold. I see the break down in discipline in our schools, I see the disrespect of workers for their boss, I see the increased disrepect from children for their parents, etc. etc.
Kids do understand the rationale behind the spanking. Parents tell the child why they got spanked!
The Transgender issue is just one of many examples showing the arrogance of Progressives who piously think they have all the answers on how we should all live our lives.
Donald Trump is the result of millions of Deplorable irredeemable working Americans who are sick and tired of being told how to be politically correct.
If you actually believe some boy is mature enough to understand his feelings of gender, and thereby become a girl and go into my daughter's bathroom, then we are through here. The arrogance of the Left is truly sickening.
I can understand the logic of someone who spanks their child. Spanking doesn't feel good, so if a child associates bad behaviour with spanking, perhaps the child will stop the bad behaviour. I get it.
However, I like to question things and understand them more intricately than that. So I ask: what specifically motivates the child, psychologically and emotionally, when he or she is spanked? Is it a sound understanding of why what he or she did was considered wrong by the parents? Is it recognition of the disadvantageous nature of their behaviour? Is it empathy? Is it freely garnered respect? Ot is it simply fear of the hand, without any understanding of the circumstance?
You'll find that most kids who are punished physically don't stop the behaviour they were spanked for because they want to or because they understand why it was wrong: they mostly stop because they are simply scared of being hit. I personally, for my child, don't feel like that is an adequate motivator. I don't want my child to stop doing bad things just because they are scared that I will hit them. I want my children to stop doing bad things because they understand and appreciate why they are bad behaviours to begin with.
You also will find that most kids who are spanked have trouble separating the bad behaviours from their self-concept. What I mean is, we all have a concept of who we are as a person: smart, dumb, funny, boring, good, or bad. When we spank kids, we automatically give them the idea that the bad behaviour is part of them: that they themselves are "bad kids". Because when we make pain on their bodies the outcome of their behaviours, we fundamentally combine behaviour with self-image: the badness becomes imprinted on their skin, so to speak. This makes for a really complex outcome, because although the children might stop doing the behaviours that led them to be spanked, they will begin to carry an image of themselves as only worthy of nonviolent treatment (read: unconditional love) when they are being compliant with the wishes of others, and this is the precursory mindset for all the adult insecurities that plague so many people out there: I am an awful person, I am bad, I should be ashamed, I am not worth affection and nonviolent treatment unless I am fulfilling the rules set out by someone else (abusive boyfriend, for instance).
Also, spanking children breaks a certain bond with the child. There is a great sense of comfort and reassurance in a relationship where violence is not used as a solution to a problem. And when we on one hand tell the child "don't hit those other kids" for instance, yet we simultaneously strike their bodies (however lightly), we make hypocrites of ourselves. The child learns the concept of "do as I say, not as I do", and we have betrayed the lesson we are trying to teach, before we start.
I find the best way to deal with unsavoury behaviour in a child is to first recognize that they are a child who is simple exploring the world they are part of: they don't yet know or understand social rules, norms, and expectations, and so they may break them in order to simply identify the boundaries that exist in the world. If we spank them every time they break one of those boundaries or make a mistake, we are basically punishing them for something they don't yet fully understand. So I prefer to talk, honestly and openly. I ask what emotions led to the occurence, why my child felt the need to do what he did, what he was thinking about, what he felt, what motivated him and what occurred after. Did he feel guilty? Did he mean to hurt someone?
Most of the time, he's just experimenting and when he sees the outcome, for instance if he hits someone and they cry, he feels guilty enough as it is. I try to teach him that to want to make reparations, and to attempt to, is penance enough. I don't feel the need to reinforce that by violating what I consider his human right to be treated nonviolently.
I chose to bring him into this world knowing full well how difficult life can already be. I don't need to make it more traumatic and confusing than it is.
As for disrespect towards authority and less inclination to be schooled, I think that's just a natural outgrowth of a more informed and intelligent youth. We don't need to force children into mandatory schools to learn subjects they may or may not be interested in, when there is a wealth of infrastructure that could be used to direct schooling in a more student-focused fashion. There is a school in Finland at the moment that takes children and teaches them the things that interest them. Hardly rocket science.
As for workplace disrespect, I find that respect is gleaned easily when it is freely given out to begin with. I don't consider paying someone a poor wage for manual labour or other taxing work, to be treated as a uniform or a commodity, a pleasurable or desirable human experience. If employers want the younger generation to work and work well, they need to adapt to the new environment the younger generations bring with them.
This world is the heritage of our young people, and they will decide its future.
For the most part, you are wrong about your assumptions of spanking and how parents and children handle it.
Here are some facts from personal experience. I skanked one of my children one time around the age of five. I told my child the reason for the spanking and after the crying, I told him I loved him no matter what.
Guess what? For that child it was the ONLY spanking ever needed. Can you grasp what I am saying? It flys in the face of everything you just said. IT WORKED WONDERFULLY!
He learned that there are consequences for bad behavior and if he refrains from future bad behavior, there will be no discipline.
I realize that every child is different and some kids need more spankings because they are more stubborn. One thing I know for sure..... the bad behavior instantly stops after the spanking. Children should always learn that parents are the authority over them and that the children do not run the show. This as always should be done in love and the child should always know this.
Spanking is not the problem, but rather how it is implemented. I agree if a child is constantly spanked with no love, and never being explained the reasons for it, he will probably grow up with anger and rebelliousness.
It's not the spanking at fault but rather the lack of love. There should always be much more love than discipline in child rearing. This is why the break down in our families with no fathers at home, is doing so much harm to how our children handle life.
What you are doing is what the Left so often does with other issues. They blame the wrong things!
They blame the gun rather than the person abusing it. You blame the spanking rather than the person abusing it. HELLO?
Kids need to learn they do not run the company they work for. They do not run the schools they go to. We have rules in many areas of life, and children should always be taught to follow those rules or there will be consequences.
When they grow up, the consequences are no longer simply being spanked. Now the consequences are much more serious. Getting fired, getting expelled, going to jail, losing your driver's license, insurance rates going up, etc. etc.
In my large extended family, most of them never need to learn these tough life lessons because they were spanked and loved when young. IT WORKS!
Disciplining a child is one thing. Instilling them with the notion that they have to conform in all aspects of their lives or they'll end up in jail or homeless or in hell (as I'm sure you like to point out) is quite another. Those two extremes do not constitute a realistic dichotomy. There are plenty of shades in between strict conformism and jail.
I'll tell you what though, the most influential and important people in human history are not the conformists; they are the pioneers, freethinkers and explorers. To challenge barriers and question norms are how societies have progressed from the archaic to the religiously tyrannical to the revolutionary to the democratic and to whatever comes next.
Nothing is achieved by playing by the rules all the time.
I hated my secondary education. Was it because I was a bad kid? Because I needed hit? Because I didn't appreciate authority? No. It was because I was forced into a classroom to learn subjects I never cared to be educated in, for a socioeconomic and cultural paradigm that I find arbitrary, constrictive, mundane and exploitative. There's no level of discipline or brainwashing or threat that could have made me like it; no level of forced adherence that could have made me genuinely want to conform to it.
Yet, am I in jail? Am I uneducated? Am I broke? Am I homeless? No. I'm writing this on an expensive computer, with an expensive smartphone in my pocket, clothes on my back, a roof over my head, a Master's degree in progress, plenty of friends, close family, and a perspective on the world that is entirely my own.
Did spanking help me achieve any of this? No it didn't. I don't respond to physical discipline. It made me resent my parents for their lack of better skills. Eventually, they have realised that to talk to me openly and honestly would have been an infinitely more productive use of both our time.
As for the rest of it: being fired from an undesirable job in an undesirable paradigm is hardly a negative thing. Questioning the de facto authority of a governmentally appointed educational entity engineered to propagate arbitrary values and traditionalist dogma, is hardly a negative thing. Being able to think free and unhindered by conditioned perspectives is hardly a negative thing.
All the greatest men and women in history were nonconformists, from Siddharta Guatama to al-Qhwarizmi, to Galileo, Rousseau, Voltaire, the Suffragist men and women, The Wright Brothers, Abraham Lincoln, Nye Bevan, Einstein, Hawking, and the list is longer than I could hope to write. All of these people -- people who have influenced our culture and progression in unparalleled and awesome ways -- went against the status quo.
Human culture doesn't need more sheep.
Hitting your kids is your way of admitting that you lack the skills to show your children that your views are valuable on their own merits. It's pathetic.
Living a life free from spanking doesn't equate to living a life of criminality or irresponsibility, and rebelliousness is exactly what nonconformism is.
My having a job and having relative success does not depend on my agreement with the socioeconomic system I am forced to use for my sustenance, it only depends on whether oI use it or not. Likewise, that money, garnered through what is for most people wage-slavery, is currently the prime necessity for sustenance and shelter does not mean that I agree that it ought to be so. I can disagree with something and still be forced into doing it, which is really what this whole argument is about. You can hit a kid and force them to do what you want, but it's not the same as making them agree that what you want is right. You can hit a kid and tell him its wrong to shit on your desk, and he may grow up and shit on your desk anyhow, if it's what he believes is right. You can force a kid in a classroom to sit down and stop asking if he can go to pee, but he still may piss all over your classroom floor regardless.
Spanking a child doesn't make them a great member of society man. You hit a kid to solve a problem, he thinks hitting people to solve problems is okay.
As far as I'm concerned, society is entirely about collectively creating standards for behaviour. If you want you and liberals to live in two different societies, then by all means chase it. If the current standards and the current direction of social morality and law don't fit with your ideas, challenge them. Just don't expect to win. Gay marriage is legal because most people want it to be. Spanking is increasingly frowned upon because evidence suggests it doesn't work.
You want to prove otherwise? Then carry out your own experiments and research on corporal punishment in children, and see what you come up with.
Spank -- verb -- to slap with one's open hand or a flat object, especially on the buttocks as a punishment.
Slap -- verb -- to hit or strike with the palm of the hand or a flat object.
Hit -- verb -- bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with someone quickly and forcefully.
If spanking is a form of slapping, and slapping is a form of hitting, then spanking is a form of hitting.
A is B, and B is C, therefore A is C. Hypothetical syllogism. It's a valid logical argument. Look it up. Also see Euclid's First Notion, a mathematical principle that applies just as well to logical analyses: things which equal the same thing also equal each other.
I'm sorry, but "IT WORKS" is not a viable response when someone questions whether or not something is moral. I don't think anyone disagrees that spanking is effective at dissuading misdeeds. The question at hand is the risks associated with it.
We have for generations understood the "risks" of NOT spanking our children and the intelligent people in the room understand that the risks of not spanking are far far worse.
We are seeing the results every day on the news. We have cops in our children schools, that we never had the need for before!
We have for generations understood the "risks" of NOT spanking our children and the intelligent people in the room understand that the risks of not spanking are far far worse.
I'm sorry, but this just seems rather ridiculous to me. Do you honestly think that the only way some children can learn is by forcing them to associate wrongdoing with physical pain?
I'm sorry, but this is truy ridiculous that you do not know or unwilling to admit the many obvious benefits of spanking for literrally centuries.
Along comes a minority of arrogant Liberals who piously think they are the enlightened ones who know better than milleniums of evidence speaking to the value of discipline such as spanking children.
It's truly amazing the arrogance. This is why Trump won! People are fed up with political correct extremism.
I know I'm not going to get anywhere with you on this, but do you think your inability to provide any details, defense, or explanation beyond "it's obvious," "it works," and "spanking and beating are different," signifies anything about your position?
I could provide you with many articles proving my case but I am not so stupid to believe you would believe a word of it. You can find your cherry picked data from biased pyschologists with an agenda and it means nothing.
The only truth in life is when we see the results for ourselves.
Before the arrogant anti spanking Progressives came along, children had much more respect for parents, teachers, employers, law enforcement, etc.
Afterwards, kids have much less respect for authority.
The only truth in life is when we see the results for ourselves.
What happens when other people see different results than you do? You really think that your specific experiences automatically apply on a universal scale, and all other observations, thinking, studying, exploration, etc. that's done on a topic is only valid if it matches your own expectations and beliefs?
I'm not saying my specific experiences are the only reason I know spanking and discipline are good things.
I look at our culture and see the results. I look at the broken families as generations of kids grew up under this no fault, no discipline ideology, and started living irresponsibly and promiscuously, and the results are obvious. Millions of children with no fathers at home because this self love no discipline generations are living the me me lifestlyes.
They don't care about hurting our children. They are living for themselves.
It depends. My parents beat my ass for any little thing they considered bad. I do not agree with that form of discipline but a smack to the back of the head when they do bad things just so they understand you are the parent not their friend is ideal.
Yes, they absolutely should. "Hitting" a child on occasion cannot be compared to actively beating a child. Look at mother animals in the wild. Lionesses, for example, will pinch the scruff of their cub's neck with their teeth if the cub misbehaves. Apes, closer to us, will also pinch or slap their young to correct a behavior. Why? Because sometimes, without realizing it, youngsters- of any species- put themselves in dangerous situations without realizing the potential danger of said situations. A simple word of advice is not always sufficient to explain to the child, especially a very young one, the danger of their behavior and may repeat it in the future, curious about WHY they weren't allowed to do so in the first place. However, if the child associates that behavior with a small amount of pain, they will be less likely to repeat- they will associate the behavior with pain and thus, danger. If, for example, a two-year-old reaches out to touch a hot pan despite his mother's warning, a smack on the bottom can teach that child to associate touching the hot pan with pain and thus danger, without going through the actual process of burning himself to learn so. If, when he reaches for the pan, his mother merely stands around, or simply says no, the trust the child will feel towards his mother will be reduced- because she couldn't, or wouldn't, protect him from the actual danger. If she grabs him away from the pan and scolds him, he will be curious as to why, and does not understand the notion of danger, children needing to touch to discover the world.
There's a difference between physically disciplining a child and making a move so that they don't harm themselves, though. I don't think anyone's gonna claim it'd be a super bad thing to slap a kid's hand away from a hot pan when you might not have the time to verbally warn them not to, nor does anyone equate that to beating a child. Besides, even if a parent did just pull the kid away, scolding them isn't the only option available. Even younger children are usually perceptive enough to understand basic explanations as to why they shouldn't do something.
Discipline is an important factor of raising a child that many modern couples have failed to incorporate into their roles as parents. The parent is supposed to guide the child into effectively knowing what is right and wrong, and how to develop the child's intellect and moral values to the point where the child can eventually determine these independently of parental aid. As a result of this failure, many children do not cultivate moral values and fail to recognize the heavy weight beheld by consequences and the impacts of their decision in everyday life on other individuals.
Some kids don't learn from just getting yelled at or a phone taken away. Kids nowadays are so disrespectful towards their parents and are spoiled brats. Maybe getting hit a couple times will knock them into place. The parents that say it's cruel either never had a bratty child or tolerate getting yelled at by their kids. I'm not a parent but I know people that are disrespectful towards their parents and it hurts me to think that some kids treat and talk to their parents the way they do. Some kids deserve to be hit a time or two and need to be straightened out.
I think beating is necessary under certain circumstances. Kids often don't know what mistakes they make, obviously due to their innocence, it's very important for them to know a clear definition of what is right and what is wrong. In other terms, what is good for them and what is bad for them.. parents for sure want the best for their children and would do anything to get them a good life.. (there will be examples of the opposite, humans are flawed, but in most cases, that is what they want) according to me, small mistakes.. ones which will not affect the kid in his/her future need not be treated with beating. But if they do something which may actually harm them in the future, beating should be allowed. I personally, thank my parents for bringing me up, beating me for any reason they saw would affect my future, which if I look upon today, what I feel is "I'm happy I didn't turn out that way".. and after all, they're parents, they wiped your ass at some point of your life, why do you possibly think they'd intend to hurt you just for the heck of it??
There is a HUGE difference between hitting a child and spanking. Spanking is used to correct behaviors while hitting just implies use for abusive purposes. There are some children that do NOT learn through repeated time outs and grounding. Spanking should only be used when and if all other options do not work, especially in instances where the repeated behavior puts the child's life at risk. It's a final effort when all other efforts have not worked, it shouldn't be the first.
Yes, they should. You can raise your child as you like. I was hit as a kid and sometimes it was the only thing that got me to behave.
I think hitting your kid is acceptable IF there is an immediate danger to the child that you don't have time to explain right away, but you should explain to the child why you hit them as soon as the danger has passed. For example, dragging a kid out of traffic and giving them a clip around the ear. The pain will be associated with the danger and they'll understand not to do it again.
The other time it's acceptable is if the child is being persistently naughty AND:
1. All else has failed; you've told them clearly to stop at least once.
2. You give them a chance not to get hit; you tell them clearly "if you don't stop I will smack you."
3. You follow through on the threat.
4. You don't use excessive force. A single smack across the buttocks that isn't too hard, just enough to give a bit of a shock and hopefully stop them acting up.
5. Tell them it will happen again if they continue to misbehave.
Optional steps:
6. Find the kid afterwards, explain what you did and apologise. Encourage them to apologise too.
7. Make sure they know you still love them.
What I don't think is acceptable:
-Hitting your child repeatedly, then it just becomes about the parent's anger / frustration and not punishment.
-Using excessive force or an inappropriate instrument e.g. a belt buckle or a stick.
Look, discipline to the extent of hitting depends on the depth of one's stupidity.
A child plays around a lit mosquito coil. His dad pulls him back severally but didn't work. He left the 2yrs old kid to touch the red fire tip and when he got burnt on the finger, he cried all night and never went near a flaming mosquito coil again.
How many times will this work?
When it's electricity, a sharp object, a deadly chemical?? etc.....(do you know how many kids die from that?)
Foolishness and curiousity abounds in the heart of every kid. Some cannot shake it off even after age 16, how much more below.(Some even turn out to be Donald trump ;at his current age and level of intelligence).
We train humans beings and we rear animals.
Go to the market and buy yourself some intelligence, and wisdom....
No, of course not. Violence is universally condemned by just about every reasonable person on Earth. Are you saying the exception -- the one time violence becomes beneficial -- is when you are hurting your own kids? That's literally the most stupid thing I've ever heard. It's like saying rape is bad unless you do it to your own kids.
When you "discipline" your own kids by hitting them, you are teaching them to use violence against smaller people in order to get their own way. If you can't explain to your kids what you mean using words then you are a moron who should never have been permitted to raise kids in the first place.
No, children shouldn't be hit as a form of punishment. Sure, it's important to have boundaries as a parental figure, but disregarding a kid's current and future emotional well-being for the sake of getting them to stop misbehaving in the short term does nothing but build mistrust and resentment.
If someone supports corporal punishment because they think it shows a child they've done something they shouldn't have, doesn't lashing out purely through violence defeat the purpose of wanting to teach them right from wrong in the first place? For example, if a kid were to lie and they admitted it, and in response their parent hit them, how does that explain to them that what they did wasn't ethical? How will that show them why telling the truth is the right thing to do morally? It won't. If anything, in this context it might just make them think that they shouldn't be honest if it keeps them from getting hurt. Or if they are honest in the future, it might only be because they don't wanna suffer the consequences, and not because they comprehend the reason why they shouldn't lie.
Even if it isn't important to someone that their child knows why they shouldn't do something as long they don't do it, or if they argue that they can still have a discussion with their kid if they hit them, then wanting to be a positive figure in their life rather than a source of anxiety should be enough of a motivating factor to try communicating with them instead of acting out physically. There's a difference between fear and respect, and raising your child using the former won't do anything to garner the trust needed for them to know you have their best interests in mind, or to give them the stable environment most conducive to them building a healthy future.
I am 27 years old and I was spanked as a kid when I did stuff wrong that I knew was wrong and I have turned out fine not fearing my parents in any way other then when I did something I should not have. I agree that you can have a discussion with the kid at first explaining why they can not do something and why it is wrong. And there are different ways you can punish them like taken away toys, tv time, video games, cell phones (witch they should not have till much older) however once you tell them its wrong and have tried all of the forms mentioned to punish and it still does not work then a physical excretion of punishment should be used. Now I am not saying that you pick the kid of by the neck and pound their face in no that is abuse, however smacking the kid on the but not drawing blood but getting the point across is not wrong. You as an adult need to know the limits and difference between punishment hitting and abuse. There is a line and I would say anyone that abuses a child should go to jail because that is wrong.
We're not talking about torturing a child, we're talking about a simple spank or whip from a belt. I was spanked as a kid and whipped if I really screwed up. It teaches discipline and consequences to your actions, something kids nowadays need to learn because they think they can just get away with anything
It teaches discipline and consequences to your actions
And yet employers are not permitted to whip their employees when they take action which displeases them. Funny that.
Being whipped is not a lesson. You aren't being taught anything. By your same redneck logic I should periodically punch my wife in the face so she remembers to put my dinner on the table by 4pm, yes?
Hitting (spanking, whacking, slapping, beating, paddling) ISN'T a good way to teach children NOT to hit.. By the same token, killing somebody ISN'T a good way to teach anyone NOT to kill somebody..
If the child is in the process right then of doing something that could seriously hurt themselves or others and it takes your direct forceful intervention to swat them away from it then do it.
But if it's just about learning the basic lessons of do this and don't do that then no they shouldn't. And these are the 99% of the time situations. Applying positive reinforcement for good behavior and consistent consequences for bad behavior can and does achieve the behavior corrections needed. I have a 3 and 1 year old and so far we have been extremely successful getting those boys to behave right without ever needing to spank or hit them. Granted, if they reached for the hot stove, or hurled sharp stuff at a little old lady, or were simply determined to run out into street traffic, then we'd do what is necessary to stop it.
The other thing is kids truly are sponges and will do whatever their parents model. If you hit them they're going to start hitting others, too. Just last week I slapped a table just once to make a noise to get their serious attention and I've seen my 1 year old do it twice since then. You have to be careful what you model.
No. Should kids/teenagers/young adults be allowed to hit their parents for discipline when they make mistakes? You can't have it both ways and it shouldn't be allowed to go either way. It is based on bullying the other person into submission and fear. We are not chimpanzees, we can do much better than rule by force.
