Is punishing a kid consider abuse? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
It's not abuse -.- But some people seem to think that a proper punishment is spanking or something similar. That's just wrong. If you have to lay your hand on a child to raise them, you're just a bad parent. | |
That totaly depends on the kind of punishment you give, and what motive you have. | |
depends on it as long as the child in question isn't wounded. (IE black eye,broken bones,etc.) | |
Well then what would you recommend? Please, relay your wisdom to all the "bad parents" of the world. | |
If he's talking about the thread I think he is, then you must have missed it. The putz who started THAT thread actually posted a list of warning signs of domestic/spousal abuse and tried to use that to equate insisting that the little bint get a job instead of an allowance was "abuse". I shit you not. For trashing her laptop. Yeah. Sorry dude, OP is right. The dumbfuckery over this whole thing would be amusing if it wasn't so depressing. | |
I think Tommy Jordan was totally justified. From what I've read, he bought her the laptop and purchased the necessary upgrades, and his daughter turned around and threw it in his face (figuratively) by posting a very disrespectful rant on Facebook. CPS even said that they were very comfortable with him as a parent. Shooting her computer was actually very creative. Can't spank a 15-year old, can you? Bravo, sir. | |
See to me that's worse than spanking. I tend to think of things like locking kids up in their bedrooms or putting them under a cold shower to be bad psychologically, perhaps more damaging in the long term whereas a spank is short, sweet and to the point. Don't get the wrong idea now, I'm not saying your were raised or punished badly or anything like that. I'm just saying I'd spank a child sooner than give him the whole cold shower shtick. I agree with you on the whole "wounded" thing. Anything that's full on physical injury and you've crossed the line from punishing a kid to hitting them. | |
Violence should never be used, physically or verbally. Explain to the kid that what he did is wrong. If you fail, explain in a different way. Always give an explanation. | |
Depends on how far you go. If you, say, ground them, that's ok. But if you do something that causes serious physical or emotional pain (I remember a case a while back about a woman who made her son drink tabasco sauce and take a freezing shower) then it's abuse. | |
Depends on the punishment. Like for instance, my dad thought I was playing too much xbox, so he took the controllers away and I had to work my ass off to get them back. I hated it, but it wasn't abuse. In my mind it is only abuse when physical violence takes place upon the kid. | |
Depends on the culture and (less importantly) the laws. If all kids gets punished it is norm and thus fine. If only one child gets punished then the kid takes extra damage as it is separate from the norm. | |
And he never actually said that you could never punish your kids as far as I remember, nor did anyone else there. | |
Talking to your kids and making them understand what they did, why it was wrong, how it makes other's feel. Try to show an emotion other than anger. Anger just multiplies itself, ever seen someone get happier when their parents get angry (unless they have some dysfunction in their relationship)? Keeping your cool when your kid is jumping around like a bunny on drugs is difficult, but the outcome is better than the alternative. Plus, if you use pain as an educational technique (yes, punishing your child is supposed to be educational) then what do you think your kid will learn from that? It might be that your kid will start thinking along the lines of: causing pain=profit. | |
I agree with the Pony Lover here... Ok I agree with Matts on this but their avatar is just so adorable I had to point it out.
I don't think its good parenting to use a gun to destroy ones own personal equipment, since that costs a lot for just the ammo plus wasted money on the object itself. I agree, its a little bit more concerning because of the reasons behind it. I'm just worried that if she does this again, what will he resort to then? ANYWAYS, what I was going to say before I quote-side-tracked. OH RIGHT! Violence should be a very last resort for the most extreme punishment, under the most extreme circumstances. It should never be the first line of response, it should be when your kid is being such a dick that its starting to physically harm others. Spanking doesn't work as well as people think it does, and, if anything hurts the parent-child relationship more then what the child has done beforehand. | |
I agree completely. The petty rebellion is a minor problem, but rebellion by having different ideas and ideologies from one's parents isn't bad. | |
This. I thoroughly enjoyed watching that man shoot his daughter's laptop. If she's going to use it to post hateful comments about her parents on Facebook, she doesn't deserve to have it. So what if she was embarrassed? She should be for behaving the way she did in the first place. That dad did an amazing job. I would have had some concerns had it just been a video of him shooting her laptop, but it wasn't. He had a perfectly valid reason for doing that. The one thing I find interesting is that everybody seems to be crying about that poor... little... girl... What about the father? Seeing those words that his daughter wrote must've hurt him terribly. Why doesn't anybody care about him? | |
Honestly, I believe it depends on their age. I was brought up on the philosophy of "If you knew it was wrong and were fully capable of stopping it but didn't, you get spanked." It worked too. I tried to avoid doing the wrong thing. And then as I got older, I got spanked less, as it didn't effect me as much. It was at that point that taking away my Playstation 1 and or 2 and Nintendo 64 for a while was enough. I don't believe what happened to me was abuse. I've done some things where I'm surprised I wasn't beat bloody honestly. I once did something so bad, it just made my parents and grandparents cry. They didn't touch me for it, not once. Though they didn't even NEED to. That's what I think it boils down to. "Does this child deserve a spanking?" If the answer is no, don't do it. If it's yes, do it. Just not excessively. Anyone else notice a trend? As soon as spankings became a controversial subject, a whole generation of little shits who could get away with anything grow up thinking that still applies when they are adults. I like to call this group 80% of 4chan. (/x/ SEEMS to be okay at least.) | |
No, spanking a child is not "beating them". | |
no, there are many forms of abuse, but spanking generally isn't one of them. | |
See, I disagree there. Violence against a kid shouldn't be any resort at all (unless the kid in question is about to murder someone or something). Also, thanks about the avatar, I agree Luna is the most adorable of all the Ponies. Related quote > "I ask thou to CHECK EM for the fun has been DOUBLED!" | |
Hitting a child is never ok in any circumstance. I was hit by my mother and father when I was young, and it still haunts me to this day. Its a small fragile human being that trusts you implicitly, and youre going to hit that defenseless child? These people need to be locked up and their kids taken to real mothers and fathers. I should disclose that Im 21 now and I am totally apathetic to my parents, they might as well be strangers | |
How is hitting a child multiple times, causing physical pain, not abuse? How is beating their ass different than just beating them? | |
So something that isn't a punch to the face and doesn't leave a scar can still be abusive, but spanking isn't abusive because it isn't a punch to the face and doesn't leave a scar? | |
Is abusing a kid considered punishment? No. The two are not the same. | |
Where you are focusing physical contact is different, and pain=/=abuse 100% of the time. As long as the pain can be proven to not be excessive(like breaking the skin or causing bruises), it is not abuse. | |
If you really want to know, take a look here. | |
If you were only interested in whether spanking is legally abuse (in the United States) then why didn't you make that argument from the start, instead of comparing the amount of harm caused by spanking to that caused by other actions? And since other countries do define spanking as abusive, does that mean that an action is only abusive if the local government says so, regardless of whether the child is harmed or not? | |
Legal is one of the main reasons I feel the way I do, but it wasn't the only reason. As I brought up before, the lack of scaring and permanent bruising were also reasons why I felt it was abuse. As for other countries, to be honest, their laws don't hold influence on my opinion on spanking anymore than their laws have influence on my opinion on hate speech. | |
Thanks for that. I told you that I was going to be suborn about this study, but I concede. Kids that young are certainly a different matter, and I would question how enriching a low-income environment would be for a kid generally speaking. I was expecting some agenda-driven study trying to tell everyone how they are bad parents when their kids are sweet, innocent angels. Trust me, in my family, we are genetically pre-disposed to be demons. Of course I was spanked when I was a rambunctious ADHD child, and not only do I remember deserving my spankings, but the thought of the punishment kept me out of trouble a lot more than my parents realized (it's not like I went up to them and said, "Mommy, I was going to do something naughty, but I didn't because I didn't want a spanking!"). Then in the case of my younger ADHD brother, I smacked him around when he was disrespectful or disobedient, and while that wasn't much of a proper spanking as I prefer to envision them, he did display more affection with me than anyone else in the family, including my overly compassionate mom. Certainly in my family's case, kids are like dogs that need to be properly broken. That little brother of mine was hardly spanked when he deserved it (failed to learn consequences), and now he's hardly able to make it to his 8th grade classes, let alone do homework or get a passing grade. My two sisters almost always behaved and they're doing fine (no spankings needed). As for me, I graduated high school 10 years ago with a 3.3 and I'm probably one of the best people you'd meet. I honestly can't say for sure if NOT being spanked would have changed anything, but I don't regret those moments one little bit. I know I learned respect and consequences at some point in my life, and I learned them well. | |
Depends on how you define punishment. If it enters into the physical, it's crossed a line. There's the standard line that sometimes kids need to be taught a lesson - but there are non-violent ways of doing it, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes the violent route is physically abusing a kid when they don't have to. Not to mention that, in many, many cases, corporal punishment is LESS effective than other forms of punishment, and frequently doesn't work. Maybe for some kids, SOME kids, it works. But for many, myself included, it doesn't. I learn from having stuff explained to me, by giving me a reason not to do something, and every time my parents tried to punish me, I sat back, took it, and then misbehaved more to show them that crap cut no ice. Let me tell you, if my parents had ever done anything like that, I would probably be obsessed with getting payback - that kind of abuse of trust sickens me. Seriously, how much imagination does it take to come up with a punishment OTHER than hitting a defenseless kid? Dress it up all you like, corporal punishment is just an excuse that parents use to justify taking their frustration out on their kids. There's more effective ways, there's ways that aren't just wrong. Then there's the question of punishment in general - to that, it also depends. It's gotta be managed - there's traumatizing stuff, like the original example, there's ineffective stuff, etc. It is necessary at times though - sometimes, kids need to learn their limits, learn what is and isn't acceptable, and learn there are consequences for exceeding those limits. As to how, well, that's already been covered. | |
If the law in the US changed, would that change your opinion?
I'm guessing that "scaring" is supposed to be "scarring" (not trying to nitpick; just want to make sure I understand what you're saying). I understand that those are two reasons why you don't consider spanking abuse (actually I think "permanent bruising" is a new criteria). My point was that those reasons are not the entirety of why spanking is not abuse in your opinion. I've been trying to understand your full reasoning for spanking not being abusive. So far you're criteria involves whether it's illegal in the US, leaves "permanent bruises" (which isn't actually possible--I think you just mean long-lasting bruises), causes scarring, or is a punch to the face. Is this an accurate summation of your criteria for judging whether an action is abusive or not? | |
I have no problem with smacking a kid. As long as you do not go overboard, try to keep the dicipline emotion free and most importantly, have set rules and set punishments already known so the kid knows exactly what to expect, then I have no problem with it whatsoever. People just need to butt out of other peoples lives and stop trying to make everyone feel like monsters because they don't raise their kids to be fucking pussies. | |
I dont care what the law says, if you intentionally cause physical pain and distress in a child to get them to stop doing whatever you dont want them to do, its abuse plain & simple. | |
It simply depends on the type of punishment. Giving extra chores and taking away their cellphone is not abuse. Beating them until they're bruised and bleeding is abuse. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
I presume you mean in a case of person in higher authority hitting is forbidden, the reality is people are often legally and ethically permitted to hit other people:
-Boxing and other martial arts tournaments
-Military or law-enforcement training for close combat
-Self-defence situations
-Sado-Masocistic sex games
-To stop an escaping prisoner
Loads and loads of examples where people are allowed to hit each other but almost always it is in cases where the person permitted to hit is on equal authority or lower influence. Such as if someone is victim of a criminal assault they are permitted to strike back till they have the upper hand. In military training and Martial arts the combatants are of generally equal level. Even sex play of "top and bottom" roles they are both reciprocating, playing to a rule book and doing what they want able to end it the moment they don't want it any more.
But a parent beating their child, or a corporal beating a new recruit; there you have a clear case where power and violence makes a far too dangerous combination with such a likelihood for abuse.
The only odd one is how many jurisdictions (including international criminal law) recognises the right for state authorities to strike and even shoot unarmed prisoners who are fleeing even though they don't pose any direct threat. That's just an established principal as many times only the threat of being immediately shot can keep a large group of prisoners from escaping. Imagine in war a surrounded platoon formally surrenders by laying down their arms, now what stops them all just running off? To stop them non-lethally you'd need 2 to 4 soldiers to retain one POW, that is such a waste of man-power no army would ever want to accept a surrender. In practice prisoners are held under the threat that those who flee will be shot even though they are unarmed.
And this is applied in peacetime prisons for criminals as well, often the only way to prevent a jail break is with firearms as almost always there are usually FAR more prisoners than guards in a prison so unlike day-to-day law enforcement they cannot rely on strength of numbers and co-operative locals to capture those who must be lawfully detained.
You can also argue semantics that if someone has passed out from a heart attack you can perform chest compressions that would be assault otherwise but considering the life saving intent it hardly qualifies as the normal definition of hitting which is intent to cause harm.