Bad News for the A2K Anti-Spanking Lobby

@BillRM,

If a child wanders into traffic, I'd say that the failure is with the parent, not with the child.

Three cases:

1) The child is too young to understand the danger. In this case, it's the parent's job to be vigilant and not allow the child to wander into traffic.
2) The child is old enough to understand the danger, and does understand the danger. Spanking will not improve their understanding.
3) The child is old enough to understand the danger, and does not understand the danger. The parent is at fault for not teaching the child about the dangers.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

If a child wanders into traffic, I'd say that the failure is with the parent, not with the child.

Three cases:

1) The child is too young to understand the danger. In this case, it's the parent's job to be vigilant and not allow the child to wander into traffic.
2) The child is old enough to understand the danger, and does understand the danger. Spanking will not improve their understanding.
3) The child is old enough to understand the danger, and does not understand the danger. The parent is at fault for not teaching the child about the dangers.

4) the child has been told of the danger and told not to do it but decides " **** it, that seems like fun" and so he wanders into traffic. Child gets a spanking and thus some pain, and then from that point associates wandering into traffic with pain and thus decides to not do it anymore.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

That would be a case of the child not truly understanding the danger.

(If a child fully understands the danger, and chooses to risk his life in order to have a thrill, then I doubt the threat of a spanking is going to deter him.)

The parent's job is to make sure the child understands the danger, and to provide skills to avoid the danger.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

The parent's job is to make sure the child understands the danger, and to provide skills to avoid the danger.

Youth tends to think that they are invincible , and flapping your gums at them is not going to change that. They understand pain though.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

.

Quote:

It damages the parent's relationship with the child, teaches the message that "might makes right," and is no more effective than other method

A parent job is not to be a child friend or equal but to raise him or her to be a useful and hopefully a happy citizen as an adult. so unless you wish to set up your child in a dream world where the world should alway be fair and that might does not indeed most of the time make right there is large benefit to having limits where there will not be any further discussion and as a last resource a spanking will occur.

It is far better to spank a child then had the police need to taser him later on in life because you never taught him that there are hard limits and beyond those limit bad things will happen to enforce your rules and later society rules whether they seem fair or not fair.

Spanking is a useful tool that should only be used when other tools fail but it still should be there and the child should know it there.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

It is far better to spank a child then had the police need to taser him later on in life because you never taught him that there are hard limits and beyond those limit bad things will happen to enforce your rules and later society rules whether they seem fair or not fair.

Again, spanking is not needed to achieve this. I believe you think so -- but it's not true.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

A parent job is not to be a child friend or equal but to raise him or her to be a useful and hopefully a happy citizen as an adult. so unless you wish to set up your child in a dream world where the world should alway be fair and that might does not indeed most of the time make right there is large benefit to having limits where there will not be any further discussion and as a last resource a spanking will occur.

You choose the weak argument Bill.

Enforcing standards by way of pain does not damage the child/parent relationship because the child is comforted in the knowledge that he/she has parents who care and who will protect their best interest. Any decent kid shrink will tell you that kids often act out BECAUSE they need to find their limits, need to test their ability to take on their parents.... they need to make sure that there parents are strong enough to make sure that the kid loses when they should.

A lot of parents these days are not up to the job.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Youth tends to think that they are invincible , and flapping your gums at them is not going to change that. They understand pain though.

It all depends on the child.

Some react more to corporal punishment, some to lectures, some to things being taken away.

I was spanked, it was never what I wanted, and it didn't work.
I had things taken from me as punishment...that didn't work.
Kept in my room when my mother thought that was a proper and fitting punishment, dinner in my room and no outside activity after. That failed.
Forced to eat standing up and away from the family, that failed.
Lectures, usually at least got me to react. Apart from my parents, the others I lived with would lecture me and with the others, I always felt deep remorse and didn't repeat the behavior...at least with the relatives. With my mother, I still had the occasional repeat of an offense; but lectures worked better.

My brother reacted best to the spanking. He wouldn't do the same thing again.
My sister, well, she need to have something taken away. A doll for a week, or some other personal possession.
One difficulty with spanking is that a person giving it can become more and more aggressive. By the time my mother got to me, she was in a steady mental decline and would scream as she spanked. She used a wooden backed hairbrush. Of course for a while she also bit me on the leg when she was angry. Point being, that similar to beating a bully, it often can escalate and pent up rage comes out, it can turn deadly. It's best not to hit.

hawkeye, my Grandmother summed it up. Once she was punished by her father with a switch. Up until then he had always talked/lectured her. She said although he was angrier than ever before....hence the physical approach...she was relieved. She knew the pain from the switching would be over after a time; whereas the words of his lectures would always stay with her and she would always be able to recall what she had done wrong and what had been said.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

what is the point of hitting anyone, at any time?

To drive home the point if needed that this is not allow period end of subject to a child with force to back it up if need be.

You had taken note that the police carry a numbers of tools to enforce society orders if need be on adults by force had you not ehbeth.

A club, pepper spray, perhaps a taser gun and of course a 9 mm handgun.

Somehow it would be more kind to spank a child on the rear end if needed then allow him to go into teenage or even young adult years not knowing that force is alway there if need be on an emotional level.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

And again, one can enforce strict limits without spanking.

The question is not whether there should be limits, but a) whether spanking is the only way to do that (no), b) whether spanking is the best way to do that (no), and c) whether spanking is actually counterproductive (yes).

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Quote:

Some react more to corporal punishment, some to lectures, some to things being taken away.

sozobe wrote:

The question is not whether there should be limits, but a) whether spanking is the only way to do that (no), b) whether spanking is the best way to do that (no), and c) whether spanking is actually counterproductive (yes).

It almost always needs to be a mix...when the parent refuses to spank they greatly weaken their position, they remove one of the major tools from their toolbox. I rarely spanked because I rarely needed to spank, my kids knowing that if they took me on they were going to feel pain was enough to not get to the point where I had to do it most of the time. I also did not waste months of my life trying to argue my position to kids (which so often turns into parents begging their kids to behave)...... I lay out the rules, say "do it or else" and then I am done. The trick is that the "or else" must happen Every. Single. Time.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

A parent job is to set the rules and enforce them to keep the child safe from his own bad judgment until he is old enough to understand the reasons behind the rules.

By spanking if need be.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

Again, spanking is not needed to achieve this. I believe you think so -- but it's not true.

In some cases with some children you are correct but that does not apply to all children.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

whether spanking is the only way to do that (no),

Spanking is a tool that is the best tool to handle a situation some times under some conditions.

Footnote it should be a rarely used tool with it being more useful as a threat and a means of drawing a line in the sand.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Aren't you supposed to be researching the anti-spanking lobby and its funding sources?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Aren't you supposed to be researching the anti-spanking lobby and its funding sources?

Where in the definition does a lobby requires funding?

Quote:

Definition of LOBBY

1
: a corridor or hall connected with a larger room or series of rooms and used as a passageway or waiting room: as
a : an anteroom of a legislative chamber; especially : one of two anterooms of a British parliamentary chamber to which members go to vote during a division
b : a large hall serving as a foyer (as of a hotel or theater)
2
: a group of persons engaged in lobbying especially as representatives of a particular interest group

Quote:

Definition of LOBBY

intransitive verb
: to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation
transitive verb
1
: to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials
2
: to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobby
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobbying

You are attempting to discredit my use of the word, but you just make yourself look stupid and peevish, because I used the word correctly.

1 Reply

What I'm seeing here is that a lot of people are reluctant to beat their children. That's understandable. No one wants to see their own children suffer. That's why you need the intervention of a disinterested third-party who doesn't really mind seeing your children suffer.

And that's where I come in. No one is more disinterested in your children than me. So I will beat your children for you. As some hippie once said: "suffer the little children to come unto me, and I will beat them for you." OK, I added that last part, but you get my point. There's precedent for this.

Now I assure you, I don't do this because I enjoy beating your children -- that's completely unrelated. No, I do this because I care. Remember, we hit because we love, and I have so much love to give that sometimes it just makes me want to hit somebody else's children.

And please, there's no need to call me a hero. I already know that.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

It almost always needs to be a mix...

Yes.

hawkeye10 wrote:

when the parent refuses to spank they greatly weaken their position,

Then they didn't have that strong of a position to begin with.

hawkeye10 wrote:

they remove one of the major tools from their toolbox.

Then they need more tools. I always recommend SOS: Help for Parents.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I rarely spanked because I rarely needed to spank, my kids knowing that if they took me on they were going to feel pain was enough to not get to the point where I had to do it most of the time. I also did not waste months of my life trying to argue my position to kids (which so often turns into parents begging their kids to behave)......

Spanking alone does not an effective parent make.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I lay out the rules, say "do it or else" and then I am done. The trick is that the "or else" must happen Every. Single. Time.

Consistency is extremely important. "Random reinforcement" is a very effective conditioning technique, so the parent must make sure not to allow random reinforcement.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

What I'm seeing here is that a lot of people are reluctant to beat their children

Assuming that you define "beat" as "spank" let me remind you that less than 25% of parents do not beat their children. I dont think that most parents have any need to sub contract out this part of parenting, we do it ourselves just fine.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I also did not waste months of my life trying to argue my position to kids (which so often turns into parents begging their kids to behave)...... I lay out the rules, say "do it or else" and then I am done. The trick is that the "or else" must happen Every. Single. Time.

How do you think the "collective" and "groupthink" takes root?

When someone is raised to unquestioningly obey authority.

I spend some time explaining each rule. It's not a lot of time, and serves two distinct purposes. Purpose #1 is so that the rule is obeyed. Purpose #2 is to teach that everyone has the right to know the reasons behind a rule, and the rule exists because it's necessary and can stand up to questioning. If it can't, it's a stupid rule.

Of course that's scaled according to age and maturity level -- a 10-year old gets a different explanation than a 2-year old.

But it means that the 10-year old also doesn't just hop in a stranger's van because he's an adult and he told her to... or else.

2 Replies

Bad News for the A2K Anti-Spanking Lobby

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know