Hitting your kids

Talanth · Post by **Talanth** » 2006-07-15 01:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:You're a fucking retard. At that age they can barely understand why they're being hit. All they learn is to fear daddy.

The only time I could understand a physical punishment like that is if not giving the punishment would put the child in danger. For example if a two year old decided to try to run into a buisey road then the only answer would be a smack. They don't understand the danger of the road but hopefully they'll eventualy understand that if they try run into it their bottom hurts. Apparently my mum had a similar problem with me looking at all the pritty lights in the oven when it was on.

The worst thing I see in the fathers actions, out of the very many, is the impact on the childs future. As Big Orange has mentioned chilldren grow up to imitate the people they see around them, often even against the childs wishes when they realise what their doing. The 'do as I say, don't do as I do' attitude is rediculouse.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-07-15 05:53pm

Trekdestroyer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: She's a fucking two year old, retard. Have you ever had a two year old child?
I wouldn't bother asking this guy a resonable question on this. He proved he doesn't want to have a reasonable disscusion about this. He obviously has the same problems as the parent in question to think so alike. I have to admit it scares me that there are more of them around.

ArmorPierce made a boneheaded remark and got rightly flamed for it. This, on the other hand, is more me-too chickenshit from you. Not that I expect any better from you--your credentials as an imbecile having been well established a long time ago--but take it the fuck out of this forum and keep it out. Not only is it annoying, but the rules of SLAM explicitly forbid it.

For fuck's sake, you couldn't even be bothered to actually address it to him. You're not just vapid and annoying, you're spineless too.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2006-07-16 01:12pm

Talanth wrote:The only time I could understand a physical punishment like that is if not giving the punishment would put the child in danger. For example if a two year old decided to try to run into a buisey road then the only answer would be a smack. They don't understand the danger of the road but hopefully they'll eventualy understand that if they try run into it their bottom hurts. Apparently my mum had a similar problem with me looking at all the pritty lights in the oven when it was on.

No. They're not capable of making that connection. At that age, pain is immediate, and aversion attaches to its direct cause. That's the parent.

On the other hand, babies old enough to crawl are capable of recognizing and reacting to the look of horror on their mother's face. Babies about to crawl over a visual drop (basically, a table with one half covered by glass) will check with mommy first. If mommy wears a smiling face, they will blithely ignore the visual drop and crawl right out onto the glass. If instead they see a horrified look on mommy's face, they stay put and refuse to venture forth. Mommy's expression is immediate feedback on whether the action the child is about to undertake is safe or not, and will be obeyed. (This instinct was brought to you by millions of babies ignoring mommy's expression and meeting their dooms.)

As for the busy road example, you forget what happens just before the bottom spanking: the parent calls in alarm for the kid to get out of the street, and more often than not the kid quickly returns to the parent's side. At this point, the kid is now in obeyance with the parent's wishes; following up with a spanking is not only unnecessary but actually counterproductive... the kid will wonder if returning to the parent's side was the wrong action to take, even though it was the correct action!

Count Dooku · Post by **Count Dooku** » 2006-07-16 02:36pm

Wyrm wrote:...following up with a spanking is not only unnecessary but actually counterproductive... the kid will wonder if returning to the parent's side was the wrong action to take, even though it was the correct action!

Interesting! I've never looked at it that way before, but it does make a lot of sense. I suppose, then, that that's why many kids who are spanked are more likely to become unruly?

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-07-17 09:32am

Another reason for not spanking, which I haven't seen anybody mention before:

I'm damned if I teach my son it's ever OK to stay still while somebody hits him.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2006-07-17 06:50pm

Quoting myself:

Violence is always the cop out for the weak minded.

If you can't even handle your own children without beating them than I'm sorry for you, you are just another bully hitting people smaller than yourself.

If you are spanking your child then you are using violence to enforce your words. So instead of teaching them the truth of your words you are teaching them that the strong have the right to enforce their will on the weak. To me that is teaching your children to be bullies. They will learn by ascosiation that if they want to enforce their will it is OK to use violence.

Children who have experienced violence will learn that it is a tool that can be used. While children who has not experienced violence and who has been discouraged when trying to use it will not easily resort to violence when under stress.

Violence begets violence.

Also in a society where teachers and strangers are not allowed to physically punish kids it follows that society must discourage parents to do the same. Otherwise the kids who are physically punished at home will be dysfunctional with other authority figures who do not punish them the same way. It used to be perfectly normal that teachers and priests would punish the children physically, that is not something that I would tolerate today and probably the majority of parents would say the same.

So now the question is would you like us to build a society where anyone can at any time give a child physical punishment (like it used to be in the smaller communities of old) or would you like us to build a society where none is allowed to give a child physical punishment?

Added caveat: physically restraining <> physically punishing.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2006-07-17 06:56pm

Wyrm wrote: Babies about to crawl over a visual drop (basically, a table with one half covered by glass) will check with mommy first. If mommy wears a smiling face, they will blithely ignore the visual drop and crawl right out onto the glass. If instead they see a horrified look on mommy's face, they stay put and refuse to venture forth. Mommy's expression is immediate feedback on whether the action the child is about to undertake is safe or not, and will be obeyed.

Not all children though. Like with most instinctual traits they are not necesarily present in all children. There are a big percentage of children who will not look at the parent at all.
I've seen many parents who has thought that just because their first 1-3 children behaves a certain way their next one will as well and then been gravely mistaken when the next child has a total different set of instinctual traits.