29
   

Spare the rod . . .

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That's an inherent contradiction right there though in what you say. On the one hand, your grandparents did the right thing because they taught you something about the adult world. On the other hand, paying back with money would have been stupid because it would have taught you something about the adult world.

Just found this as a sample paragraph of the research out there:

Quote:
Elizabeth Gershoff, a researcher at University of Michigan's School of Social Work, says Straus's findings are consistent with the literature. "I have every faith in his research," Gershoff says. "The more children are spanked, the more aggressive they are and the more likely they are to engage in delinquent or at-risk behaviors." Sexual behavior is just one example of that behavior, she says. One lesson kids learn, says Gershoff, is that if you have the power in a relationship, you can use aggression to get your way. Another: "[Kids] may learn that sometimes there's pain and fear involved in loving relationships."


I'm glad you feel that you suffered no ill effects from the treatment you received. That doesn't really prove anything though. This is one of those things that is risky. Sometimes it's damaging, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's profoundly damaging, sometimes it's moderately damaging. But time and science has really not borne out the idea that it's something you should do.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:03 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Meaningful to whom?


To both the law and those involved. Believe me.

Quote:
People who "spank" are just lying to themselves about what they are doing.

At least have the guts to defend the reality of what you do, if you approve of hitting kids.


Perhaps you haven't been reading the thread? I have been consistently defending my position. However, I am not required to accept your insistence that there is no distinction between the definitions in order to do so.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
not born out by my life experiences

And like all anecdotal evidence, I shall give it exactly the consideration it merits.

Perhaps you had exceptionally disciplined parents, but if so, I assure you they are the vast minority when it comes to spanking.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't agree with the conclusions that many modern researchers seem to have reached on this and several other subjects.

And?

You can join the flat earthers and creationists in disliking the conclusions of science if you wish, I suppose.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm usually not a traditionalist, but in this case I totally am - spare the rod, spoil the child.


This is the absolutely least defensible aspect IMO. It's actually saying that it's BAD to NOT hit a child. You offer yourself as proof. I can match that with myself (I wasn't spanked, and I'm sickeningly law-abiding), and my daughter (never spanked, same).
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:05 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:

I'm glad you feel that you suffered no ill effects from the treatment you received. That doesn't really prove anything though. This is one of those things that is risky. Sometimes it's damaging, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's profoundly damaging, sometimes it's moderately damaging. But time and science has really not borne out the idea that it's something you should do.


It has been my personal experience that parents who afraid to take that risk do as much damage to their kids as those who do take that risk. I'm quite glad that those of you who have the opposite opinion have been lucky in the way your kids have turned out; that has not been the case for those I have met.

Cycloptichorn
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Huh? I was beaten, too.

And I know the law very well, thank you.

Your position is indefensible...re the weasel word of calling hitting "spanking"...so I have no concern about how long you have been defending it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:06 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

You can join the flat earthers and creationists in disliking the conclusions of science if you wish, I suppose.


Pretending that Psychology is anything but a Soft Science displays a profound ignorance as to the actual nature of that field. It is not comparable to harder sciences such as physics in any fashion.

Cyclotpichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:07 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Huh? I was beaten, too.

And I know the law very well, thank you.

Your position is indefensible...re the weasel word of calling hitting "spanking"...so I have no concern about how long you have been defending it.


My position is not indefensible, and the easiest proof of that is: it is not against the law to engage in corporal punishment with your child. I would say that counts as a pretty solid defense of my position.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:


Why spanking is not the best choice

The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend spanking. Although most Americans were spanked as children, we now know that it has several important side effects.

*

Even though spanking may seem to "work" at first, it loses its impact after a while.
*

Because most parents do not want to spank, they are less likely to be consistent.
*

Spanking increases aggression and anger instead of teaching responsibility.
*

Parents may intend to stay calm but often do not, and then regret their actions later.
* Spanking can lead to physical struggles and even grow to the point of harming the child.

It is true that many adults who were spanked as children may be well-adjusted and caring people today. However, research has shown that, when compared with children who are not spanked, children who are spanked are more likely to become adults who are depressed, use alcohol, have more anger, hit their own children, hit their spouses, and engage in crime and violence. These adult outcomes make sense because spanking teaches a child that causing others pain is OK if you're frustrated or want to maintain control"even with those you love. A child is not likely to see the difference between getting spanked from his parents and hitting a sibling or another child when he doesn't get what he wants.


http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_Discipline.htm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:08 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm usually not a traditionalist, but in this case I totally am - spare the rod, spoil the child.


This is the absolutely least defensible aspect IMO. It's actually saying that it's BAD to NOT hit a child. You offer yourself as proof. I can match that with myself (I wasn't spanked, and I'm sickeningly law-abiding), and my daughter (never spanked, same).


I am not claiming that all children need to be spanked, or they will be ruined; but the opposite opinion - that it is always wrong to do so - is surely as extreme and untrue as what you are accusing me of championing.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm quite glad that those of you who have the opposite opinion have been lucky in the way your kids have turned out; that has not been the case for those I have met.

You're conflating spanking with good parenting.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I wouldn't know nothing about psychology, but the state I worked in defined clearly in statute that using a belt=leaving a bruise constitutes child abuse, period.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:10 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm quite glad that those of you who have the opposite opinion have been lucky in the way your kids have turned out; that has not been the case for those I have met.

You're conflating spanking with good parenting.


Absolutely not; it is your side of the argument which is conflating spanking with Bad parenting, which is an incorrect position.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Really obvious response to that one: does the fact that the law does not recognize homosexual marriage in most states serve as a solid defense of the positions of people who are anti-gay-marriage?

People often hold bad ideas -- especially ones that originate in the Bible -- for a long time, no matter what logic and science have to say about it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:10 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

I wouldn't know nothing about psychology, but the state I worked in defined clearly in statute that using a belt=leaving a bruise constitutes child abuse, period.


Properly administered corporal punishment does not leave bruises, and as I stated earlier, is much more psychological in nature than physical.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I hope your fiancee doesn't read this; you just threw her entire profession under the bus.

Just because it's a soft science doesn't mean you can ignore good research when it doesn't suit your pre-conceived notions.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm curious as to your response to this...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Learning the lesson that those who are 'bigger' than you - and note that this isn't really about physical size, but about a power discrepancy - can punish you if you break the rules is an important lesson for children to learn, as they are going to experience exactly this situation over and over in their lives, whether the 'bigger' person is the Law or your Employer or some other authority-bearing unit that we are forced to deal with.


to which I replied...

JPB wrote:

But none of those entities can hit you, right? Not ONE. Why? Because it's assault and assaulting a child is no way to teach them a lesson.


If there are consequences that happen throughout life when one doesn't follow the rules, shouldn't the consequences be the same things we use to teach our children?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

I wouldn't know nothing about psychology, but the state I worked in defined clearly in statute that using a belt=leaving a bruise constitutes child abuse, period.


Properly administered corporal punishment does not leave bruises, and as I stated earlier, is much more psychological in nature than physical.

Cycloptichorn
yeah so silly of me to have read and responded to the original post starting this thread.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm usually not a traditionalist, but in this case I totally am - spare the rod, spoil the child.


This is the absolutely least defensible aspect IMO. It's actually saying that it's BAD to NOT hit a child. You offer yourself as proof. I can match that with myself (I wasn't spanked, and I'm sickeningly law-abiding), and my daughter (never spanked, same).


I am not claiming that all children need to be spanked, or they will be ruined;


You are, though! That's exactly what "spare the rod, spoil the child" is. If you don't spank them, they will be ruined.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 03:13 pm
@sozobe,
I was going to comment on this. I can buy that in some cases corporal punishment might be a net benefit, but the notion that it is a necessary ingredient to child rearing is demonstrably false.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My daughter - Discussion by Seed
acting out or real problem - Question by Bl08791
Tween girls - Discussion by sozobe
Nebraska Safe Haven Law - Discussion by Diest TKO
For Parents - Discussion by shawn1989
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 08:53:23