As a parent I look at the subject this way: I want my daughter to cry or sweat now and go on living, then to bleed and suffer grievous harm later.

I can do nothing to prevent the future, I can only try to prepare her for it.

I do not want her to fear authority, only respect it when it deserves it, but she needs to understand that truth and consequences do in fact exist and won't care if she does not acknowledge said existence. This is because the law of the jungle is always there, underlying everything, it is only by our own careful decisions to be polite and civil that we keep it at bay. Freedom is not free, it is earned through mutual respect, discipline, and self defense.

Edit: For example, with the advent of her learning standing and walking, things are being pulled down and scattered on the floor, so I am making a point of making her put those things back, first with words, then example, then guided hand. Successful accomplishment is rewarded with hugs, kisses on the cheek, clapping, thumbs up and congratulatory words such as "good" and "yes" spoken and sign language. Failure to comply is met with "No", "Pay attention", and steering, which she counters with tears. She is quickly learning that is more enjoyable to comply with said parameters than trying to ignore them.

zhoomout:
I think smacking is a terrible thing. Clear boundries can be established without the need for violence. In fact I find a lot of kids who got smacked actually hit other peole at school. The kids think "If it is ok for my parents to smack me then why isn't it ok for me to smack others". A parent is a role model and any who thinks it is ok to teach a child through violence in my opinion is a bad one.

Well the problem with that is that one could assume that said parent is not going to explain the reason they had to resort to spank their child. Without the context to explain the action the child will think that smacking others is okay, but it is with that context that knowledge, wisdom and experience is gained.

I grew up in the school of hard knocks. Whether it was from school, or home there was while I was a kid that resulted me in getting spanked or beat up and whenever my parents did resort to the palm they took the time to also explain after why they had to resort to the palm. If parents do not explain anything to their children they are letting the child live in ignorance, and no amount of education will fix that because it is about being social and where they learn the behavior.

I have taken a lot of physical abuse from my fellow man growing up. I have been slapped, punched, kicked, thrown, stabbed and hit by cars(2 times and I'm still alive) and most of these people did it because it was okay and they wanted to show their masculinity and thought violence was okay because they never truly felt pain or had any negative consequence due to their actions short of a "do not do that". It is with that lack of experience that people do not go through that epiphony(sp?) that "pain is bad, so I should not inflict on others" so they continue their route until someone finally has to arrest them for commiting a crime.

A role model is a person who does not only show the positive traits in humanity but also make sure that they can teach the negative traits in humanity for a complete understanding that not everyone is going to have the same mindset as yourself. They are going to disagree, not understand, and not be willing to listen. These people are by no means "evil" but have not had anything to challenge their way of thinking through emotional, physical, or mental experience. You should make every attempt to understand their thoughts but not enforce your mindset on them, for it will only reinforce their beliefs even further closing their minds to any other possible thoughts, or experiences.

Tenmar:

Oh and Cheeze_Pavilion, I doubt he meant true liberals but people who are just completely against the idea that they are going to teach our future generation responsilibity when they go through life without having to be responsible. I'm sure you can think of some of these people in your life who really can do anything they want without thinking of any possible negative reprecussion. I'm not saying I want people to be inhibited, but these people can go so far that they will damage others while they hurt themselves.

True--my issue is that he's talking as if only those people believe that smacking kids is wrong and that it's impossible to teach children responsibility without having physical discipline to resort to.

For example, when I attended UCSB some hallmates when I lived in the dorm known as Mike decided to throw a party in his room and drink. Perfectly fine, I never minded a good party but I was busy doing a report(All nighter I was a slacker). So as the night progressed I decide to check it out and what I found the body of a frat boy fall on me and when I checked his pulse it was flat. I told announced it and Mike's response was to take his beer and force it down the guys throat saying "it'll be allright, I told him it was okay to drink". So once again I had to call 911 and they had to get there and pump his stomach. The frat boy was in a coma for 2 days and Mike refused that it was his fault.

While it certainly was the frat boy's choice to consume, it was Mike's fault to pressure him to drink past his limit to the point where he could of died. It is a lot easier to responsible and take on everything while they are small before they grow and become out of your control.

That is why I believe that if people do not get the point past words or fixing the mess a child made, a simple spank to open their ears and then re-explain why they were punished is crucial to let a child know that they have to be responsible for themselves but never be afraid to ask for help when needed.

Yeah, but frat boys have been drinking themselves dangerously silly for years and years and years, since back when physical discipline for children was perfectly acceptable and was a widespread phenomenon.

I mean, are you even sure that Mike wasn't smacked around as a kid? Your example hinges on some kind of link between that behavior and lack of physical discipline. How do you make that link in the face of the fact that frat boys have always been out of control/if you don't have knowledge of how Mike was raised?

Tenmar:

I have taken a lot of physical abuse from my fellow man growing up. I have been slapped, punched, kicked, thrown, stabbed and hit by cars(2 times and I'm still alive) and most of these people did it because it was okay and they wanted to show their masculinity and thought violence was okay because they never truly felt pain or had any negative consequence due to their actions short of a "do not do that".

Sort of what I was saying in my other response: how do you know that? Plenty of bullies are actually knocked around quite a bit at home; in fact, I'd say it's more likely that those people had a need to show their masculinity because they felt it had been taken away from them in the past by someone else putting them in pain in a situation where they were powerless. I'd say it was much more likely that they learned that violence was okay because the people they looked to as role models were violent themselves.

Platinum117:
i got smacked when i was younger, hard, and it fucking hurt. And then i did what i was told, for the better. So in my view smacking your kid is fine. Whats your view?

Then, I'm sorry, but your parents fucked you up.

There aren't many cases in which I would even consider spanking to be a reasonable punishment, and "smacking" is never acceptable. A parent who commonly uses that kind of punishment is a bad parent, and indeed a bad person. Either they are using it when it isn't needed, or they have raised their children poorly enough so far to make it needed. It should be used as a very last resort or not at all.

However, I certainly do not believe any government should get involved except in cases where it would be considered serious abuse. Letting the government regulate or control anything like that is a slippery slope that we should stay the hell away from.

Khell_Sennet:
Children should both fear and respect their parents.

Fear is the opposite of respect. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Suffering that the children will pass down to their own children by disciplining them the way they learned how.

I feel nothing but pity for you, your parents, and your future children. The fact that you are "successful" does not mean that you are a good person.

Oh I'm sure we would all love to go through life not having to induce any physical force on any child. But the possiblity is always there that a spank might be the only answer to get their attention. That I agree with you Cheeze.

And you are right it was a bad example because I did not consider the past of Mike as a child, I never got to know his past that well aside from being the standard "star athelete/party guy" sterotype. What I wanted to convey was that people now growing up without violence seem to be less responsible in the future than previous generations. There is no real "force" to demonstrate that people should be mindful of their actions and behaviors.

As for drinking...well yeah.. but to be honest the parties at UCSB has been so tame over the years it is really sad seeing it change during the four years while I was there for a acclaimed party school. People still get drunk, but it is so tame where the school newspaper got to report that the rate of dangerously drunk college students hospitalized was at an all time low in 5 years. It even continued for each year I was there.

EDIT: Welcome to The Escapist Vuljatar!
That is such a Star Wars quote if I have not seen one. Yes it can lead to negative traits but that is where talking to your kids is key. Without understanding, people follow dark roads in life thinking that they are entitled and always right. You have to explain to children in those rare times you might have to use force. I'm sure all of us here would not lay a single hand on a child if they dropped a glass of milk on the floor. However finding out that your child attacked you directly I would put spanking on the list if the child would not stop his violent action.

You are also right that being "successful" does not mean that a person is good. For there are pleanty of people who are "successful" but are some of the most vulgur and horrible people I have ever met in life. They look good on the outside but they are rotting inside and want to spread their ways to others.(I'm just talking about some co-workers here too)

Leaving aside the issue of violence and responsibility being correlation and not causation, isn't the logic you express here:

Tenmar:
What I wanted to convey was that people now growing up without violence seem to be less responsible in the future than previous generations. There is no real "force" to demonstrate that people should be mindful of their actions and behaviors.

Undermined by this example

As for drinking...well yeah.. but to be honest the parties at UCSB has been so tame over the years it is really sad seeing it change during the four years while I was there for a acclaimed party school. People still get drunk, but it is so tame where the school newspaper got to report that the rate of dangerously drunk college students hospitalized was at an all time low in 5 years. It even continued for each year I was there.

you use to support it? If college kids are winding up in the hospital making bad choices with alcohol less and less, and college kids are growing up without violence, doesn't that indicate that growing up without violence makes kids *more* responsible? Could it be that a few examples like the guy with the cell phone are overly influential on us as observers? And that we have no basis on which to conclude the cell phone guy wasn't smacked around as a kid?

Maybe every time the cellphone guy tried to go off and be independent and self-sufficient, his mom smacked him around.

Now I am being taken out of context. Cheeze I was expressing my shock, and only shock that the school newspaper reported the lowered amount of dangerous drunkedness from college students. I was glad to know that my peers were being more responsible on the whole and that paramedics, the fire department and police were not required to show up on campus of in Isla Vista to save the life of a college student.

Sure UCSB has changed and maybe even lost their "fame" as a party school but I do not want you to confuse my sentiment of how things changed at college for my support of college students drinking.

Edit: themselves stupid

Tenmar:
Now I am being taken out of context. Cheeze I was expressing my shock, and only shock that the school newspaper reported the lowered amount of dangerous drunkedness from college students. I was glad to know that my peers were being more responsible on the whole and that paramedics, the fire department and police were not required to show up on campus of in Isla Vista to save the life of a college student.

Sure UCSB has changed and maybe even lost their "fame" as a party school but I do not want you to confuse my sentiment of how things changed at college for my support of college students drinking.

I'm not talking about your endorsement for college student drinking: what I'm talking about is that you've said, basically, that kids raised without violence wind up less responsible. I'm not taking you out of context, right? And it's also accurate to say that you also said that kids today are raised without violence?

Then you also said the kids at UCSB were getting more responsible. My point was that these same kids are the ones being raised without violence, so if you're right about the link between violence and responsibility, shouldn't kids be getting *more* irresponsible (i.e. more trips to the hospital) and not less?

Exposing kids to violence to early on can have bad psychlogical effects on people. thats why movies have age ratings. Teaching people to fear authority is also not a good thing. Its better to ignore a childs bad behavior and reward good behavior. What many don't understand is a lot of "naughty" children play up because they want attention. If you hit them, that gives them the attention they want and they'll do it again because it works. if you ignore them, they will eventually get bored and stop.

"The opposite of love isn't hate. It's indifference."

Vuljatar:

Platinum117:
i got smacked when i was younger, hard, and it fucking hurt. And then i did what i was told, for the better. So in my view smacking your kid is fine. Whats your view?

Then, I'm sorry, but your parents fucked you up.

There aren't many cases in which I would even consider spanking to be a reasonable punishment, and "smacking" is never acceptable. A parent who commonly uses that kind of punishment is a bad parent, and indeed a bad person. Either they are using it when it isn't needed, or they have raised their children poorly enough so far to make it needed. It should be used as a very last resort or not at all.

Ok, first, let's not get too hung up on words. Smack, spank, it's a word. Smack a child's bottom and smack a child's face, two different situations. I don't think anyone here on either side was ever saying they'd hit the kid across the face. THAT is abuse. A smack over the back of the head, not as much so, just the redneck version of a spanking, but still not what we're going for here.

Secondly, if someone feels that inside they are socially well adjusted, that they are successful and happy, how can you say their parents fucked up for spanking/smacking/WHATEVERing them? Here we have a socially acceptable person who was spanked, and hundreds of children bouncing off the walls because parents no longer have control of their children. Which one's fucked up now?

Vuljatar:

Khell_Sennet:
Children should both fear and respect their parents.

Fear is the opposite of respect. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Suffering that the children will pass down to their own children by disciplining them the way they learned how.

I feel nothing but pity for you, your parents, and your future children. The fact that you are "successful" does not mean that you are a good person.

Fear is the opposite of respect. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side of the force, blah blah blah.

I think you are taking things to their extreme, and out of context. Fear, for one, is not an off/on thing, there is a varied range of fear, for various reasons. A child should fear that if they do something bad, their parents will punish them. If this is wrong, then all of society is wrong. This fear of parental disapproval is a developmental lesson for the real world, where if you fuck up, it's not your parents you're fearing, but the police. Should people NOT fear police will come after them when they do bad? And we aren't saying fear as in live every moment in terror... Fearing one's parents' punishment is a back-of-the-mind thing, but there for when you think about doing something phenominally dumb.

And no, fear and respect are not incompatible to eachother. You can respect your parents and still love them can't you? And if you love them and desire their respect, would you not have fear of losing that respect? Punishment or not, would you fear their disapproval of your actions? Well you can fear punishment just the same as disapproval, and it still doesn't negate respect or love.

But if you must, pity me. Pity me, the 27 year old post-sec educated general manager of a lumber mill. And pity my children, who will be raised with love, compassion, and a guiding hand. And pity my parents, who have managed to raise two very successful children and one marginal screw-up. Pity us all you want, because it doesn't change the fact that how I was raised DID instill me with good morals, a sense of right and wrong, an appreciation for the consequences of my actions, and the ability to see that all the discipline in my life, from parents or others, were for my own good, whether or not I could see that at the time.

I think spanking a child is never ever a bad thing ever when the parent is a reasonable parent. This is coming from someone who was often in a children shelter as a kid and who as a adult now works at a shelter when I can and plan on making that into a career.

However, I believe spanking and smacking on the arm or leg should always be done with love and on a clear mind not when in anger. I find parents who do the "hurt me more then you" and on a clear mind know when to stop and just a strong pat. When if the parent is still angry then there is no clear point where to stop and often goes far behind a strong pat and into bruising.

*edited*

Khell_Sennet:

I think you are taking things to their extreme, and out of context. Fear, for one, is not an off/on thing, there is a varied range of fear, for various reasons. A child should fear that if they do something bad, their parents will punish them

I agree with your post but also this main point for emphasis. And also this "fear" isn't always hitting like some think but I find many reasonable parents find this "fear" can also be for a teenager taking away a game system and TV.

Khell_Sennet:

Secondly, if someone feels that inside they are socially well adjusted, that they are successful and happy, how can you say their parents fucked up for spanking/smacking/WHATEVERing them? Here we have a socially acceptable person who was spanked, and hundreds of children bouncing off the walls because parents no longer have control of their children. Which one's fucked up now?

And you also have hundreds of children bouncing off the walls who were smacked, and a socially acceptable person who was not. You still aren't making any necessary connection between kids getting smacked and kids becoming socially acceptable people. They 'fucked up' because if you can get to the same result without hurting someone, you take the option where you don't hurt people.

It's like the All Ghilled Up mission in CoD4--you can take the guards out, or you can just go around. Sure you can complete the mission either way, but only parents who don't physically discipline their kids get "Ghillies in the Mist" achievement.

Tenmar:
I'm sure all of us here would not lay a single hand on a child if they dropped a glass of milk on the floor. However finding out that your child attacked you directly I would put spanking on the list if the child would not stop his violent action.

Here's a question that your post made me think of: for anyone that thinks physical discipline should be an option for children, let's say--god forbid--you were in a terrible car accident and you suffered brain damage so that you became child like in your mental capacity.

Should your caretakers have the right to physically discipline you when you attack them? If not, why shouldn't they?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Tenmar:
Now I am being taken out of context. Cheeze I was expressing my shock, and only shock that the school newspaper reported the lowered amount of dangerous drunkedness from college students. I was glad to know that my peers were being more responsible on the whole and that paramedics, the fire department and police were not required to show up on campus of in Isla Vista to save the life of a college student.

Sure UCSB has changed and maybe even lost their "fame" as a party school but I do not want you to confuse my sentiment of how things changed at college for my support of college students drinking.

I'm not talking about your endorsement for college student drinking: what I'm talking about is that you've said, basically, that kids raised without violence wind up less responsible. I'm not taking you out of context, right? And it's also accurate to say that you also said that kids today are raised without violence?

Then you also said the kids at UCSB were getting more responsible. My point was that these same kids are the ones being raised without violence, so if you're right about the link between violence and responsibility, shouldn't kids be getting *more* irresponsible (i.e. more trips to the hospital) and not less?

I double back on your with the same logic that like Mike you yourself also do not know if my fellow now UCSB alumi or dropout have ever experienced a spanking to their behinds to determine if they did indeed become responsible.

But from my experience of life and the people I have to work with, more people have decided to spare the rod and let their children run wild have become irresponsible. I am not saying that "If parents do not spank their child" then "the child will have a higher chance of being irresponsible". but what I would like to suggest that "If a parent is not capable of making their child understand the context of their negative actions through the use of talk or spanking" then "The chance for their child to be irresponsible increases due to not having the knowledge of their negative action".

It is that self-discipline that we should strive for and we should only control ourselves and not others. No religion, goverment, or another person should control you when you are an adult. A child needs to be guided and taught self-discipline as they grow and this self-discipline will happen at random times in their life.

Let us not get so wrapped up in the "result" when it is the "journey" that the point of this discussion should be based on. I'm sorry that my examples have been poor, but this late at night I do not have any "statistics"(pending you can find something balanced, because we all know how skewed they can be at times) to support or negate my own personal life experience living in southern and central California in my life. I used my life because it is the only example I could use at the moment. I do really appreciate this discussion though, always good for my mind to sit down and think what I need to say and what I want to make the reader understand.

*edited*

Tenmar:

I double back on your with the same logic that like Mike you yourself also do not know if my fellow now UCSB alumi or dropout have ever experienced a spanking to their behinds to determine if they did indeed become responsible.

What reason do you think UCSB students are unlike the general trend of less violent childhoods? I don't know about UCSB students, but why is it impermissible to assume they are raised in no more violent households than what is 'average'?

But from my experience of life and the people I have to work with, more people have decided to spare the rod and let their children run wild have become irresponsible. I am not saying that "If parents do not spank their child" then "the child will have a higher chance of being irresponsible". but what I would like to suggest that "If a parent is not capable of making their child understand the context of their negative actions through the use of talk or spanking" then "The chance for their child to be irresponsible increases due to not having the knowledge of their negative action".

Okay, but that's different from your initial point. It's your in initial point about the connection between violence and responsibility that I was addressing. This point I agree with.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Tenmar:
I'm sure all of us here would not lay a single hand on a child if they dropped a glass of milk on the floor. However finding out that your child attacked you directly I would put spanking on the list if the child would not stop his violent action.

Here's a question that your post made me think of: for anyone that thinks physical discipline should be an option for children, let's say--god forbid--you were in a terrible car accident and you suffered brain damage so that you became child like in your mental capacity.

Should your caretakers have the right to physically discipline you when you attack them? If not, why shouldn't they?

I am pretty confident having to spend some of my time assisting mentally disabled people as an Explorer Scout while I was in high school, that they are not child like in mind. True some do need to be taken care of at times like a child and need guidance to know where to go, heck there is a group of people down at the mall near where I work that at every lunch they take them around the mall and allow them to shop, interact and explore just like everyone else while they have lunch.

I would honestly say I would be even more reserved than ever to spank that person because they are not a child, they will have the mind to reason out the good and the bad with proper context. Obviously if they decide to use force on another person, the first step just like with any parent is to stop the situation from becoming violent and that would result in the physical action of stopping the confrontation and a various set of methods could be used. Restraining the person, physcally shield the person being assualted, distracting the individual, all fine methods that are non-violent and can stop the confrontation allowing the possiblity of discussion to open and end the conflict.

I cannot see myself ever having to go the extent of violence on a mentally disabled person, but at the same time I cannot expect that person to be truly "child" minded that they would not be able to make that judgement call.

So short answer is spanking a mentally disabled person would be even more of a last resort than a child because they are not truly child like in mind and are capable of reasoning just like you or me and are able to listen to reason better than a child.

Chiasm:

I don't see where your coming from but at the same time I do, First off I know what I dealt with as a child but also what I do at a shelter dealing with other kids who were abused and raped. There is a big big big difference between a parents spanking there kid and abusing them.Like I said a spank shouldn't leave a bruise but to compare spanking to abuse when a lot of abuse can often be a razor across your body there is no comparison at all.

Whether there is a difference between bruising and razor scars depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about how evil they are, then sure--big huge difference. However, in the same way the police getting a confession out of someone without reading them their Miranda rights first and getting that confession by beating them with a rubber hose on the soles of their feet are both violations of their Constitutional rights, I think that both smacking and razor assaults are violations of the human rights of children.

EDIT: Also I would say that spanking triggers a much different issue than just physical discipline. The backside is an erogenous zone and spanking can send all kinds of fucked up signals to the brain about sex and guilt, meaning a level of punishment that would not qualify as abuse if it were delivered to another part of the body would qualify as abuse if delivered to the backside because sexual abuse does not need to be particularly violent to qualify as abuse.

Tenmar:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Here's a question that your post made me think of: for anyone that thinks physical discipline should be an option for children, let's say--god forbid--you were in a terrible car accident and you suffered brain damage so that you became child like in your mental capacity.

Should your caretakers have the right to physically discipline you when you attack them? If not, why shouldn't they?

I am pretty confident having to spend some of my time assisting mentally disabled people as an Explorer Scout while I was in high school, that they are not child like in mind.

I think the issue here is that they're not going to let a high school kid doing this as part of their Explorer Scout activities near people with severe mental disabilities, the kind of people I'm talking about.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Whether there is a difference between bruising and razor scars depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about how evil they are, then sure--big huge difference. However, in the same way the police getting a confession out of someone without reading them their Miranda rights first and getting that confession by beating them with a rubber hose on the soles of their feet are both violations of their Constitutional rights, I think that both smacking and razor assaults are violations of the human rights of children.

Well,First let me say its late and realized,"Bouncing off walls" was a expression and really misread that whole post it seemed because of it. Secondly I think smacking is more a gray area in the way I would only allow say a parent smacking a child's back of the arm or leg almost like taping on the hand to emphasize "No" However I think any smack above the neck or with force behind it should not be allowed.

As I said I think a parent that is reasonable and only does anything physical with love will know what is enough to get the point across,As anything physical is only a last step that should only rarely be used only as there is much better ways to go about things.I think issues come out with parents who smack or spank when they are still angry and ignore other issues that could be driving the behavior and also the amount of pain being inflicted.

*edit*

Cheeze_Pavilion:

EDIT: Also I would say that spanking triggers a much different issue than just physical discipline. The backside is an erogenous zone and spanking can send all kinds of fucked up signals to the brain about sex and guilt, meaning a level of punishment that would not qualify as abuse if it were delivered to another part of the body would qualify as abuse if delivered to the backside because sexual abuse does not need to be particularly violent to qualify as abuse.

Well,I guess two points only would be I would like to see if there has been a case study over kids who only had spanking done and what it caused compared to kids who had nothing. And without reading up to see if there has been a major case study and research on it.You have to remember there children and light spankings have been part of history for such a long I would think then every adult would have either a fetish from it or some kind of guilt from it as it is not uncommon to be spanked as a child. Though if you read Freud(And believe in operant conditioning) then it seems children would only want to do negative actions to get the positive punishment if they felt that kind of pleasure from it. If I am understanding you right that is.

SMACK THE LITTLE SH*TS, words don't work, I am 16 and I have to look after my younger cousins (2,4 and 8) and they are annoying as hell, and they don't do as their told. One of them (4 y