Stop That Spanking!

[JETA]

I'm going to start spanking my dog. I wonder if that will help....she's such a butthead.

It's a beagle! Of course. BEAT HER!

[mwfanelli2]

I love your choice of words. It's like asking the question, "Hey, are you still beating your wife"?

You really are not interested in what others think, you are looking for an argument. Your answers are peppered with beat, hit, violence, frustration, lack of control all pointed towards the people who think corporal punishment is OK. I can't believe anyone condones abusive behavior towards a child and how a swat on the butt is being construed as that is beyond me.

Yeah, right. If you can't understand sarcasm then, at a minimum, don't make yourself look foolish advertising it. By the way, DO you still beat your wife?

I want to see the articles that show Christians are supporting child abuse and that beating children is OK. I'm not getting that in link you posted. This is what I found, "Appropriate spanking is not 'beating' or 'abusing' a child, which is a ridiculous and offensive comparison," continued Thomasson. "When appropriate spanking is lovingly administered, it greatly helps a disobedient youngster to become a well-adjusted adult who respects authority."

Wow, a loving act of violence. Once again, for the millionth time, if you spank me you get arrested. If you spanked me when I was 17, its "loving discipline." If nothing else, that is hypocritical.

If parents want to say "a little violence is necessary", I'm OK with that. It's honest and it might work for some children although I might not agree. However, where is the line, what constitutes a "little", "a bit more", "too much"? That's left up to the imagination of the parent.

For every parent who gives their kid a slap on the butt there is another one who uses a strap to help raise a child right. I guess you aren't old enough to remember when beating kids with a belt and using a thick wooden paddle were acceptable and loving forms of discipline. It wasn't that long ago when teachers in schools were also allowed to do that. Was that loving discipline as well?

Yes, government intervention would only muck things up more. But it's still violence regardless of how much you might want to hide your actions behind more "appropriate" words.

If you don't spank then so be it but come on, please don't treat those who do as child abusers, there is a major difference and you know that.

Please don't tell me what I know and don't know. For me, child abuse runs along a very thin line, there is no "major difference" between loving violence and abusive violence as you'd like us to believe.

[mwfanelli2]

So let me get this straight...you had the sense to discern all this as a child, but lacked the sense to choose behavior that would have avoided your getting spanked?

Well, lets see...uh...um... I WAS A KID!!!

For me, being hit or paddled was counter-productive. But yes, by high school I had learned how to easily outwit adults and not get caught. Hardly the lesson they intended. I have no idea why I was wild as a kid, but I do remember that there were some adults I never messed with. Why? Not the threat of violence, but because they engaged me, challenged me, and treated me as if I was more than just a pain in the butt. FWIW, I was also an "A" student in spite of my wildness which made many adults even angrier.

And where was your personal responsibility? Rather than choose behavior that would have kept you from getting spanked, you instead chose to rebel and suffered the consequences. And now you complain about the discipline that was meted out to you?

Good grief. Besides the obvious repeat of "I was a kid", it is because VIOLENCE DOESN"T WORK! It's like saying the death penalty helps prevent murders. You can't modify behavior in a good way through the use or threat of violence. At least, that's my opinion.

You know, I now agree with you...spanking didn't teach you anything. Not that it couldn't have taught you anything, it's just that you weren't willing to receive the lesson. Some kids are just that way, though.

I wasn't willing to accept that violence was a good or proper thing. Wow, pity me!

One last thing...how do you suppose it is that I've now come to appreciate my parents' harsh discipline for my behavior while you've come to despise yours?

An excellent question that I won't answer. As much as I like this discussion, I'm afraid my answer would not be taken in the way it was meant.

[JETA]

where is the line, what constitutes a "little", "a bit more", "too much"?

This is what I'd like to know. Where's the line? At what point is it crossed? Are there only certain areas to hit? Can we hit as long as we don't leave marks? When is it abusive?

[schrackman]

An excellent question that I won't answer. As much as I like this discussion, I'm afraid my answer would not be taken in the way it was meant.

Don't worry, I don't get offended easily or take things the wrong way. I'd like to hear your answer.

[mwfanelli2]

What great timing!

Last night (on WBT-AM, North Carolina) Neal Boortz told the tale of a Jacksonville, Fla. parent and teacher who were arrested. Why? The teacher called the parent and demanded he bring a belt to school and discipline his 13-year old boy. The father did, took the kid to an empty classroom, and beat the kid with the belt. Wonders of wonders, both were arrested.

Neal Boortz was stunned and amazed that anyone would be arrested for getting a child to conform. He called it the "wussification" of America's youth. What is happening to this country when parents can't discipline their children? Not beating children turns them into wimpy adults. How many callers do you think agreed with him and bemoaned the "liberal conspiracy"?

I'd bet, without proof of course, just a hunch, that the vast majority of Americans would agree with Neal Boortz's opinion. So it goes...

[adina]

and you don't see a differnce between a quick swat with an open hand and a BELT ?

There is a difference between spanking and beating. Whipping your child with a belt, to me, constitutes beating.

[schrackman]

Well, lets see...uh...um... I WAS A KID!!!

So are you suggesting kids can't be held personally responsible for their actions just because they are kids? If so, I highly disagree. If anything, parents need to hold their children accountable. After all, the real world will.

For me, being hit or paddled was counter-productive. But yes, by high school I had learned how to easily outwit adults and not get caught. Hardly the lesson they intended.

It's not the lesson that failed, it's what one chooses to do with the lesson that made all the difference in whether or not he or she continues in bad behavior.

I have no idea why I was wild as a kid, but I do remember that there were some adults I never messed with. Why? Not the threat of violence, but because they engaged me, challenged me, and treated me as if I was more than just a pain in the butt.

Well, we shouldn't expect that adults other than your parents would resort to corporeal punishment to correct you. It's not their place.

FWIW, I was also an "A" student in spite of my wildness which made many adults even angrier.

That's great that you got good grades, but it doesn't excuse or make up for any bad behavior. Your parents were probably bewildered as to why you could get good grades but couldn't or wouldn't show the same enthusiasm with good behavior. So I can understand their frustration.

Good grief. Besides the obvious repeat of "I was a kid", it is because VIOLENCE DOESN"T WORK! It's like saying the death penalty helps prevent murders

You can't avoid personal responsibility by claiming "I was just a kid." Kids make choices, good or bad, knowing the consequences laid down by their parents. That makes them accountable for how they behave. Yes, kids do stupid things without thinking sometimes, but that is what discipline is for...to remind them that they can't act stupid and get away with it, that they need to modify their behavior. Spanking isn't the only means to accomplish that, but I fully support a parent's right to resort to it should they feel it necessary.

By the way, the death penalty is 100% effective in preventing murders, as the one put to death can never harm another human being again.

You can't modify behavior in a good way through the use or threat of violence. At least, that's my opinion.

Wanna bet? The very reason for which we have laws and punishments is to curb bad human behavior and prevent anarchy. And it works for the most part, excepting those of course who fear no consequences–you know, the incorrigible.

I wasn't willing to accept that violence was a good or proper thing. Wow, pity me!

Of course you weren't willing to accept it. What kid likes to get spanked? But this doesn't negate that spanking is a good thing in that it instills in the child a sense of right and wrong, that there are boundaries to behavior, and that bad behavior can sometimes have a swift and harsh consequence.

I still would like you to answer my question. Don't worry, you're not gonna shock or upset me.

[Jaedon]

Shrackman - You're the first person in this discussion to use the word "boundaries" and it is excellently timed. Without knowing where the limits are and what the boundaries are how is a kid going to know the difference between right and wrong.

I know that this discussion is not about changing others minds but when entering a conversation like this you must be able to see the other side of the conversation without taking offense. It seems to me that MWFanelli is just itching for a fight.... which is entirely contradictory to his abhorance of violence. A spanking is not violence in any sense of the word. Reacting in anger and reaching for whatever is at hand, be it a belt, wooden spoon, hockey stick, etc. is violence without question. If my child is reaching for a hot stove and I slap his hand and tell him "No ..Hot" is that violence? Is that child abuse? If I let him burn himself on the stove just because I am afraid to slap his hand for fear of being labled a child abuser I am worse off that if I let him burn his hand on the hot stove. If my child is caught playing with a lighter and I spank him so that he understands the serious nature of his offense is that child abuse? Or should I just let him burn down the house and my entire family with it? Some offenses need dire consequences in order to get the point across. If I spanked my child because he accidentally flipped a single green pea off his plate and onto the floor at dinner time... then absolutely that is going to far. Sure the "line" is subjective to each individual parent, but most reasonable people know where that line is.

I feel for you MWFanelli that you seem not to have had that positive influence in your life and that you cannot grasp the concept. No I do not know your upbringing other than what you keep mentioning above, but simply based on that (and nothing else to go on) I feel correct in my statement.

Since I see this thread going nowhere other than into the depths of infighting, I am walking away with this post.

Peace be with you all.

[schrackman]

I wouldn't be too hard on Michael, Jaedon. I think he and I are a lot alike–passionate about a subject and enjoy debating it with one another! lol

But I essentially agree...children need boundaries to know right from wrong, and consequences for when they cross the line. Spanking, for the most part, is an effective consequence for most children that are on the receiving end, but not necessarily the first line of discipline one might persue. Oftentimes a stern voice, the denial of privileges, or an extra serving of yard duty just might do the trick. :-)

Oh, and rewarding good behavior is essential too. Praising your children, giving them extra privileges, a raise in the allowance, are all things that both reward and encourage good behavior in children.

[mwfanelli2]

OK, here it goes. Please remember that, regardless of how things are worded, it is not meant as an insult!

Your question was: "One last thing...how do you suppose it is that I've now come to appreciate my parents' harsh discipline for my behavior while you've come to despise yours?"

There are two extremes in this world, one represented by you, the other by me. Some people believe that conforming to the norm is good for them and good for society. Japan is like this, although the traditional thought is starting to waver. People such as this tend to be religious, searching for absolutes, and arguing for the status quo in most things. They are the foundation of any society.

I am on the opposite side. I grew up questioning everything, challenging every action and thought. People such as myself are often non-religious as religion doesn't accept real questioning. When teachers told me something, I asked for proof. I attack dogma, conformists, the "do it for the greater good" types. It is no wonder I went into physics where this is the norm for most! Many artists and writers are like this as well.

For you, being hit was a good thing because it taught you what was acceptable and what was not. For me, it was counter-productive because the excuses I got for violenec were lame ("It's for your own good" garbage) teaching me that people tend to be illogical and irrational. You can't run a society with people such as myself but you don't get progress from those who toe the line.

As for other questions:

As of this moment, 22 states allow corporal punishment using a wooden paddle. I wonder if that constitutes abuse as it isn't even the parent comitting the violent act. I was paddled in school. As stated previously, all it did was focus my disgust on that teacher. Yes, my father took a belt to me sometimes, not in anger, but because it was considered good parenting. That just created resentment.

Kids do studid things because their brains are not fully formed until their early 20s. They may know what is right and wrong but the centers of the brain that act on that knowlege are not fully there yet. This is why children are wild, do stupid things they know are stupid, start on risky behaviors, and also why the bulk of our military are very young. A kid will often answer "I don't know" when asked why they did something dumb. This is not a dodge, in most cases they really don't know why.

Two people have accused me of being a troll! What they are really saying is "You don't agree with us so you are an idiot." That is the mark of a static thinker. You only learn when your beliefs are challenged, not by singing to the choir.

[schrackman]

Hi Michael,

OK, here it goes. Please remember that, regardless of how things are worded, it is not meant as an insult!

In the first place, I don't know why anyone would find what you wrote insulting. Mistaken, perhaps, but not insulting. :-)

Secondly, I think some people tend to get too emotional about a subject and thus disable themselves from being able to debate it in a calm and rational way. That's what generally takes away value from a discussion like this.

There are two extremes in this world, one represented by you, the other by me.

Well this is a matter of opinion, and not necessarily the fact of the matter. I do not view my position as extreme but one that permits incorporating of a type of discipline that has been in used for millennia by many different cultures and is not, therefore, unique to American culture. So how can it be logically labeled "extreme"?

Some people believe that conforming to the norm is good for them and good for society. Japan is like this, although the traditional thought is starting to waver. People such as this tend to be religious, searching for absolutes, and arguing for the status quo in most things. They are the foundation of any society.

But even many non-religious parents use corporeal punishment on their children. My parents were not religious, but they religiously believed in spanking. And yes, I got my fair share of it. So I don't think it is accurate to say that spanking is a matter of searching for absolutes or even conforming to the norm, but rather a parent setting their own boundaries for their children and then exercising consequences for crossing those boundaries.

I am on the opposite side. I grew up questioning everything, challenging every action and thought. People such as myself are often non-religious as religion doesn't accept real questioning. When teachers told me something, I asked for proof. I attack dogma, conformists, the "do it for the greater good" types. It is no wonder I went into physics where this is the norm for most! Many artists and writers are like this as well.

I must say that you are over-generalizing religion. Religion (at least Christianity) does not deny a person to question why. On the contrary, it actually anticipates that men will question why, and then it goes on to provide the answer. And once the answer is known, it then expects conformity to God's will. We are not mindless sheep, you know, and neither do we expect others to not understand why it is God commands our faith and obedience.

For you, being hit was a good thing because it taught you what was acceptable and what was not. For me, it was counter-productive because the excuses I got for violenec were lame ("It's for your own good" garbage) teaching me that people tend to be illogical and irrational.

But again this boils down to how you perceived the punishment. Your parents meant it one way, but you interpreted it another way. That is not the fault of your parents, but of your perception. You do realize that many criminals often think the same way of their sentences, don't you? Some are often angry at those who put them behind bars, but such an anger is really unjustified because in reality they ARE accountable for their actions. And it matters not to us that they don't like their punishment.

You can't run a society with people such as myself but you don't get progress from those who toe the line.

Well this is a very interesting admission of yourself. You might wish to contemplate a little deeper on why it is a society can't be run by people such as yourself, but it can be run with people such as myself.

8< snip...I don't have much time left to comment on this part.

Two people have accused me of being a troll! What they are really saying is "You don't agree with us so you are an idiot." That is the mark of a static thinker. You only learn when your beliefs are challenged, not by singing to the choir.

Well again, this is letting one's passions get the best of him. I prefer to argue my case rationally in hopes of persuading another to my view, as name calling rarely gets the job done.

[mwfanelli2]

I would just like to say that everyone sees their way of thinking as the right and rational way. I could not live if I had to conform to the norm in most ways. You could probably not survive thinking as I do. Perception is everything! Uh oh, sounds sort of like Popular Buddhism for Americans (a phrase from one of my foreign students).

Societies need both types to survive. I love to read about the true rebels, Galieo, Newton, Einstein, Pauling, Feyman, Joyce, Shaw, Baudlaire, Picasso, Dali, (sp?), etc. These were people who could never be the backbone of society yet; as rebels and questioners, they were able to not only think outside the box but destroy the box all together! These are my "heros", not politicians, world leaders, bankers, my accountant, stock broker, doctor, etc.

Although religion is a discussion in itself, let me say that faith is just that: accept what you are told without proof. Raised as a Christian, it didn't take with me even as a small child, it does so even less today. For others, it provides a comfort and a way to make life worth living. Rebels are almost never religious. Even Mother Theresa gave up faith in the latter portion of her life (diaries released this year). No, it doesn't make her any less of a heroic figure but it does say something about the nature of the rebel vs the majority.

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can at this point. So, unless something really riles me up (!), I'm going to take a back seat.

Oops, the time! I'm off to class!

[schrackman]

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can at this point. So, unless something really riles me up (!), I'm going to take a back seat.

Well I tend to agree with you and end this discussion here. But there is something else you said that I would like to take up in another thread:

Although religion is a discussion in itself, let me say that faith is just that: accept what you are told without proof. Raised as a Christian, it didn't take with me even as a small child, it does so even less today.

Do you mind having a discussion on this?

[mwfanelli2]

Do you mind having a discussion on this?

Sounds like fun. Of course... never mind! I'll let you start the new thread this time!

[schrackman]

Great. I'll try to get to it a bit later on. Right now I've got to go get some pictures of snow covered mountains!