Spank your child - go to jail.

[Gan]

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.
Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

more...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16487654.htm?source=rss
_______________________________________

1. This is political hypocracy in the fact that Democrats do not want the Government to tell people how to run their lives (sexually) but yet are all in favor of telling people how to run their lives (parentally). GET A FUCKING CLUE, AND GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!!!.

2. No parent is perfect. No method of parenting is perfect. No child is perfect. Oh, and no politician is perfect. That about covers this idea.

3. I'm all for giving my son a swat on the ass when I need to get his attention for misbehavior. I base this understanding on Behavioralism (BF Skinner) and the use of positive/negative reinforcement until such a time when reason and logic can replace the understanding thereof by the child. I seriously laugh when I'm out in public and see a 'concerned parent' attempt to reason with a 2 year old. Seriously.

4. So to protect the child's interest, the politicians are willing to lock up a parent (and in effect deprive the child of the parent's presence) for up to a year because of the dangers of spanking a child represnt a greater priority. :banghead: Oh I know, lets fine the parent and take money out of their pocket that would and could be used to buy food, clothing, or see to the basic needs of the child. RIGHT ON!!!

THANK GOD I DO NOT LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.

[Sean of the Thread]

Spare the rod spoil the child.

[StrayRogue]

Personally I've always found a conservative view of raising children to be the dumbest way of child rearing. While making spanking illegal is stupid, it pales by comparison to things like getting creationism taught as a science, the MAVAV, the censorship of books, negative views towards other cultures and sexualties, etc etc.

[Gan]

Personally I've always found a conservative view of raising children to be the dumbest way of child rearing. While making spanking illegal is stupid, it pales by comparison to things like getting creationism taught as a science, the MAVAV, the censorship of books, negative views towards other cultures and sexualties, etc etc.

Censorship of books - stupid. Encoruage the parents to become more involved with their children and inappropriate reading material wont be an issue.

Creationism - belongs in church.

MAVAV - ?

Cultural/sexual negativity - does not only belong to the conservative crowd, this is a lack of education issue since I know liberals with the same bias to race, creed, color, sexual origin, etc. Firstly it starts at home. Flaws in this perspective with the child can be easily traced to flaws with the perspective of the parents - or lack thereof.

[ElanthianSiren]

Are they looking to prohibit spanking though in general? The answer is no.

Spanking a child before age three can cause injuries to the child because a child's head is so much heavier and larger than the rest of its frame at that age.

I hope that's the intent, anyway. I believe a better approach may be to mandate parenting courses to parents that irrepairably and physically damage their children through physical punishment. In cases where a child is regularly or irrepairably damaged, removal from the home until the parent learns to parent is the way to go.

I don't feel however you need a law like this for a little swat on the ass in response to "don't touch the hot stove."

-M

[Sean]

What a waste of time. They should make it legal for me to spank other peoples kids who misbehave if their parents refuse to do it.

[Shari]

I have seen two year olds that would definitely benefit from a swat on the ass. I could never see any reason to start spanking earlier than that. Children under that that age tend to do "bad" things out of curiosity than for intentionall reasons. When they reach those "terrible twos" they realize they can test the limits of what their parents are trying to teach them.


-Will spank her children (when she has them) if they get out of line.

[Drew2]

The CPS came to my house when I was about 6 years old because a teller at the bank my step father worked at saw him knock me across the entryway of the bank, hit a wall, and onto the ground.

Nothing happened to him.

When I was about 10 my step father sent me to school with a swollen lip and bruises on my face. Counsellor called my house concerned and my parents convinced her I was lying. Again, nothing happened.

My step father dragged me by the hair across his room and held me against the wall, in the air, by my neck, and threatend to kill me in the near future when I was 11. By this time, I figured there was nothing I could do.

So thanks Ganalon, by helping guys like him out.

[CrystalTears]

Spanking a child before age three can cause injuries to the child because a child's head is so much heavier and larger than the rest of its frame at that age.
-M
What does the size of a child's head have to do with spanking?

[Drew2]

Whiplash.

[CrystalTears]

Tayre, this is for children under the age of 3. You still wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on, no pun intended.

[Gan]

Spanking a child before age three can cause injuries to the child because a child's head is so much heavier and larger than the rest of its frame at that age.

-M

Leave it to those silly Californians to spank children on their heads instead of their ass.

If you are hitting your child so hard or in such a way that it causes a whip-lash effect to the neck because of an oversized head moving in opposite reaction to the force applied to the ass end then you are hitting too hard = which in my mind crosses over into abuse - which we already have laws for. Thats why we also have knees with which to bend said misbehaving child over to better apply hand to ass.

We have abuse laws for children. If they need to be updated, then do so. But even then, a definitive line needs to be drawn between abuse and spanking. And spanking as a form of corporal punishment between a parent and their child does not need to be legislated as well as anything else that happens in the realm of the famliy unit. California has too many other screwed up areas that politicians need to be concerned about instead of whats going on at home.

[Drew2]

Tayre, this is for children under the age of 3. You still wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on, no pun intended.


I'm more referring to Ganalons sentiments than I am the actual law itself.

My real father took care of the beatings before the age of 3. But I don't have memories that go back that far, so I can't speak for that. I can just tell you what I've been told it was like.


And to addon to my earlier post, most of the time I was just "spanked" which rendered belt-shaped bruises from the middle of my back to the back of my knees.


And this isn't meant to be a "poor me" post, it's meant to display the other side of this argument. Congratulations, think you know how to properly disclipline your child. Many, many other parents in America don't.

[Sean]

It's not really a true counter argument though. I'm fairly certain when most people refer to "spanking" they aren't referring to choking your kid, knocking them across the room, or even using foreign objects.

[Miss X]

Leave it to those silly Californians to spank children on their heads instead of their ass.

If you are hitting your child so hard or in such a way that it causes a whip-lash effect to the neck because of an oversized head moving in opposite reaction to the force applied to the ass end then you are hitting too hard = which in my mind crosses over into abuse - which we already have laws for. Thats why we also have knees with which to bend said misbehaving child over to better apply hand to ass.

The problem is, unless you have secret powers, you'll never know how much pain your actions cause. Pain thresholds vary enormously.

[Gan]

The CPS came to my house when I was about 6 years old because a teller at the bank my step father worked at saw him knock me across the entryway of the bank, hit a wall, and onto the ground.

Nothing happened to him.

When I was about 10 my step father sent me to school with a swollen lip and bruises on my face. Counsellor called my house concerned and my parents convinced her I was lying. Again, nothing happened.

My step father dragged me by the hair across his room and held me against the wall, in the air, by my neck, and threatend to kill me in the near future when I was 11. By this time, I figured there was nothing I could do.

So thanks Ganalon, by helping guys like him out.

Dude, you're preaching to the choir.

My step father used to beat on me regularly. Anything was fair game, so whatever he had in his hands usually came flying at me. I was regularly struck about the head and face. Yes, I went to school with bruises, cuts from belt lashes across my back and rear thighs. I remember being subjected so many violent outbursts and attacks, being pushed down, struck with open hands and closed fists as well as cruel psychological assaults. My mom just let it happen.

My grandfather tried to step in when I was young, and my step father moved my mom and I 200 miles away so the interference would cease. I hear stories from my uncle (when he's drunk) about the fist fights my step father and my grandfather used to get into over my abuse.

Helping your step father? I dont think so. You were failed by broken CPS policies and procedures as well as school abuse detection procedures. You were failed by your mom allowing it to happen and not getting the fuck out - much like me. You were failed by ineffective abuse laws... Not by the absence of laws prohibiting spanking unruly and misbehaving children. You were also failed by an ignorant stepfather who could either not control his temper or think with his head instead of his fists, or both.

Rule #1 as a parent is that you have to be smarter than your child.

The beatings stopped when I got into high school and was big enough to fight back, which I did in many creative and effective ways.

Do I think about all the things that I suffered as a child every time I discipline my child? Hell yes. For the longest time I did not want to have a child for fear of turning out just like my step-father. But I made a choice. I chose to eductate myself on what others have done to successfully raise children. I've read books, watched shows, taken classes, and most importantly I'VE NEVER FORGOTTEN what it was like to be in the child's shoes. I also remember vividly the hatred I had for my step-father and the things I used to do that would inevitably incur his wrath. I was no angel, even so that still did not justify what I went through.

Now you know why I say that there should be a test people must take and pass prior to becomming parents. Even if it does mean legislating a right to have and raise children.

[Drew2]

choking [...], knocking them across the room, or even using foreign objects.

We're not talking about Chica's bedroom fantasies.

But what I am saying is that with a law like this, it becomes easier and more likely that people like that will be put away, or discouraged from starting behavior that will lead to worse actions.



I'm not sure why I emphasized a certain word so I took it out.

[Sean]

Spanking isn't supposed to be painless.. what would be the point if it was?

[ElanthianSiren]

Leave it to those silly Californians to spank children on their heads instead of their ass.

If you are hitting your child so hard or in such a way that it causes a whip-lash effect to the neck because of an oversized head moving in opposite reaction to the force applied to the ass end then you are hitting too hard = which in my mind crosses over into abuse - which we already have laws for. Thats why we also have knees with which to bend said misbehaving child over to better apply hand to ass.

We have abuse laws for children. If they need to be updated, then do so. But even then, a definitive line needs to be drawn between abuse and spanking. And spanking as a form of corporal punishment between a parent and their child does not need to be legislated as well as anything else that happens in the realm of the famliy unit. California has too many other screwed up areas that politicians need to be concerned about instead of whats going on at home.

I agreed with you, if you missed it. Last sentence of my post.

-M

[Drew2]

Spanking isn't supposed to be painless.. what would be the point if it was?

Soooo many Chica jokes dying to be typed out here.

[Gan]

The problem is, unless you have secret powers, you'll never know how much pain your actions cause. Pain thresholds vary enormously.

Especially through the padding of 2 inches of diaper material. And if you're up on your Skinner you'll know that pain is not the only objective, nor the most important objective when you spank a child.


.

..

...

Its the shock/suprise of the punishment, reinforced by a negative stimuli (usually in the form of some disconfort or pain). Thats why we dont give lollipops out when children misbehave. Otherwise they'd do it all the time.

[Sean]

You give your kids cavities for misbehaving... that'll learn them.

[Gan]

You give your kids cavities for misbehaving... that'll learn them.

Especially if you're Willy Wonka's father.

:spaz:

[Latrinsorm]

And if you're up on your Skinner you'll know that pain is not the only objective, nor the most important objective when you spank a child.You're aware that Skinner and behaviorism have gone out of vogue in the psychological community, right?

[Gan]

You're aware that Skinner and behaviorism have gone out of vogue in the psychological community, right?

So because its not trendy makes it not viable?

Whats the latest buzz word now? Ask Dr. Spock about trendy or being in vogue...

[Latrinsorm]

The scientific community isn't junior high, though. Things don't gain or lose popularity just for the hell of it.

If you want to believe that Skinnerism applied to physical punishment is a viable way to raise a child, I can't stop you (not since Cheney stopped returning my calls, anyway). What I can stop you from doing (rhetorically speaking) is using it as a reasonable justification for opposing a law such as Assemblywoman Lieber proposes.

[Gan]

The scientific community isn't junior high, though. Things don't gain or lose popularity just for the hell of it.

If you want to believe that Skinnerism applied to physical punishment is a viable way to raise a child, I can't stop you (not since Cheney stopped returning my calls, anyway). What I can stop you from doing (rhetorically speaking) is using it as a reasonable justification for opposing a law such as Assemblywoman Lieber proposes.

^^^
I never said that I was using Skinnerism as a justification to oppose the Lieber legislation. Is that creative reading on your part? The justification I use for opposing Lieber legislation is that our government has about as much right legislating our sexuality as they do our child rearing. None. Government does not belong in our homes unless reasonable laws are broken... extreme circumstances could be considered as child abuse, rape, or any deviant thereof.

Go back and read my initial post. Pay specific attention to what I said about the merits of Skinnerism with regards to the event threshold of children becomming capable of logic/reasoning. Then read the part where I mentioned that there is no perfect parent, no perfect child, no perfect way to raise a child, oh, and no perfect politician.

Just as a refresher... here are some earlier topics covering the concept of child punishment/child rearing.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=20488

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=436888


My older brother was spanked once (I did not learn of this until a couple years ago). Neither my younger brother nor I were ever, nor was there ever a threat. I was the best behaved as a baby/child (naturally, as I am the best brother), but I would say that there is zero discerable moral difference between our behaviors now.

:lol:

Good times, good times.

[Latrinsorm]

I never said that I was using Skinnerism as a justification to oppose the Lieber legislation.Then why did you put it in your list in the original post, neatly bracketed by points directed to "Democrats", "the Government", and "the politicians"?
Government does not belong in our homes unless reasonable laws are broken... extreme circumstances could be considered as child abuse, rape, or any deviant thereof.This isn't really a sensible thing to say, though, because the point of contention is whether this law is reasonable. You're clearly convinced it's not, but you don't offer anything to back it up besides the psychological equivalent of Newtonian physics and rage.
Good times, good times.I'm glad you could appreciate it, I guess.

[Back]

Woah, ok, major scientific debate.

I’m going to agree with Gan. The Government does not need to be this involved in our lives. We already have laws against abuse.

[Gan]

Then why did you put it in your list in the original post, neatly bracketed by points directed to "Democrats", "the Government", and "the politicians"?
Read for context please. You're bright enough to figure it out.



This isn't really a sensible thing to say, though, because the point of contention is whether this law is reasonable.
You're right, replace reasonable with sensible and you have it.



You're clearly convinced it's not, but you don't offer anything to back it up besides the psychological equivalent of Newtonian physics and rage.
Ummm, ok, if you say so. :wtf:


I'm glad you could appreciate it, I guess.
I appreciate many things, including your often sheltered perspectives (most times).

[Skirmisher]

Everything is relative and punishments can be meted out in degrees.

I can swat my nephew on the rear to get his attention without knocking him around or bruising or pushing him into a wall or breaking a bone or anything horrible like may have been mentioned.

I readily acknowledge that some people cannot distinguish the levels at which one should stop and child abuse obviously can and does happen.

Just as some people cannot drink without becoming drunks and some people for some reason are unable to drive without getting into accidents. The mission should be to deal with those who lack that ability to properly judge what is a proper punishment.

To penalize the by far greater majority who is only trying their best to raise their children with the proper respect, manners and consideration as opposed to some of the screaming misbehaving urchins that society is churning out these days for the flaws of a much smaller fraction makes no sense to me.

[Tisket]

I believe most children that were spanked and still turned out alright did so in spite of the physical punishment. Not because of it.

[TheEschaton]

I was spanked as a child, and I think it taught me the first Noble Truth of Buddhism: Life is Pain.

Spanked children, IMO, tend to be more down to earth, less spoiled, and able to understand/cope with why shit isn't fair sometimes.

Abused children - that's a whole different story.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm not understanding if (When I traverse the country to Sacramento) I see a father/mother spanking their kids if instead of being all, "Who gives a shit?" That I now have to be aghast at endangering the welfare of a child and assault charges? Er?

I mean, if there was specifically an issue in the city of Sacramento where, hands down, police reports indicated a significantly high rate of child abuse, um, per capita, then I suppose I would understand trying to use this as a pedestal with which to intimidate pussy-ass child beating fuckfaces.

In other words, I'm not understanding the legislation as being anything but political.

[Skirmisher]

I believe most children that were spanked and still turned out alright did so in spite of the physical punishment. Not because of it.

I certainly do not think spanking should be an everyday occurrence in the child rearing process, i just think to outlaw it is overreaching and counter productive.

I was spanked probably 2 or three times in total in my life but you can bet that I knew that it was always a possibility and one i did not wish to have repeated.

[Parkbandit]

What 'you' think and what 'you' don't think is the problem. I don't give two shits what some politician believes how I should raise my child.

Just another example of Government sticking their nose into things that don't concern them.

[Parkbandit]

I believe most children that were spanked and still turned out alright did so in spite of the physical punishment. Not because of it.


Bullshit.

How many kids do you have again?

[Tisket]

Bullshit.

How many kids do you have again?

Three. Two are steps. And inflicting pain on one of them to make a point isn't something that appeals to me. Tough shit if you disagree.

[Tisket]

I certainly do not think spanking should be an everyday occurrence in the child rearing process, i just think to outlaw it is overreaching and counter productive.

I was spanked probably 2 or three times in total in my life but you can bet that I knew that it was always a possibility and one i did not wish to have repeated.

I really hate the level and depth with which the government is already involved in our personal lives. It's messed up shit however, that there do exist people that need legislation to keep them from hurting their own children. If certain foam-at-the-mouth posters have an issue with it so what.

[Skirmisher]

I really hate the level and depth with which the government is already involved in our personal lives. It's messed up shit however, that there do exist people that need legislation to keep them from hurting their own children. If certain foam-at-the-mouth posters have an issue with it so what.

To that end i feel the answer is more community involvement to enforce the laws that already exist to protect children rather than putting laws in place that would not be needed if people would take their heads out of the sand once in a while and be a concerned citizen, neighbor and human being.

A law outlawing any spankings is completely out of proportion to the problem in my opinion though.

[Sean of the Thread]

Three. Two are steps. And inflicting pain on one of them to make a point isn't something that appeals to me. Tough shit if you disagree.

If you seriously think it's about inflicting pain then you're the one with the problem... and certainly the type of person this legislation would be aimed at.

[Tisket]

If you seriously think it's about inflicting pain then you're the one with the problem... and certainly the type of person this legislation would be aimed at.

You're a moron. I think spanking has more to do with a parent's emotional upset and exasperation than it does about discipline.

[Sean of the Thread]

You're a moron. I think spanking has more to do with a parent's emotional upset and exasperation than it does about discipline.

If you think that you're now twice the idiot you after your last post. I don't know what you'll win but we'll keep score for you anyway.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think spanking has more to do with a parent's emotional upset and exasperation than it does about discipline.

I wanted to respond to this. I do also. With regard to spankings, I feel the law is over reaching, and I don't feel that the law addresses the actual problem. With regard to modern children, my view is that the unruliness has to do with lacking respect (bunch of posters going duh!!). However, part of the lacking respect is the punative system itself, which is applied in a way that only perpetuates the cycle.

1. Set a consequence.
2. Make sure the child knows the consequence.
3. Inform that consequence will be delivered.
4. Deliver that consequence with emotionlessness. If you must be emotional, be compassionate but firm.

Delivering physically punative measures with rage or exasperation only enforces, especially to very young children, that when they feel rage or exasperation hitting/bullying is the answer. I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at, but that's how I saw and see it.

-M

[Gan]

You're a moron. I think spanking has more to do with a parent's emotional upset and exasperation than it does about discipline.

If this is the depth of your understanding and thought towards spanking, then perhaps its best that you dont use it as part of your parental routine.

Again, parents should be required to pass a test prior to having children.

[Olanan]

a parent's emotional upset and exasperation

That's how I was "spanked". As in, getting the shit beaten out of me via fist.

But, this is most likely the exception.

[Parkbandit]

That's how I was "spanked". As in, getting the shit beaten out of me via fist.

But, this is most likely the exception.

That's called child abuse and they already have laws against that.

[Olanan]

I was abused as a child?

:(

[Gan]

I was abused as a child?

:(

Use your brain. What do you think its called when you strike someone with a closed fist? Adult or child?

[Sean of the Thread]

Use your brain. What do you think its called when you strike someone with a closed fist? Adult or child?

Boxing or karate kid.

[Gan]

Try...


Felony assault. Child abuse with felony assault... etc.

[Latrinsorm]

That's called child abuse and they already have laws against that.
Felony assault. Child abuse with felony assault... etc.Again, the point of Assemblywoman Lieber's proposed legislation is that spanking a child below the age of three is also child abuse. I recognize that you two believe that it isn't, but to dismiss the opposite position out of hand is just dogmatism. The only person who's proposed any sort of ethical backing for or against the law is Melissa.

[Gan]

Again, the point of Assemblywoman Lieber's proposed legislation is that spanking a child below the age of three is also child abuse. I recognize that you two believe that it isn't, but to dismiss the opposite position out of hand is just dogmatism. The only person who's proposed any sort of ethical backing for or against the law is Melissa.

Again, you're totally missing where I"m coming from. Its like you read what you want and not whats being said. Its like you're dismissing the opposite position of your stance (agqainst corporal punishment) out of hand, and yes, spewing pure dogmatism. If the shoe fits eh?

Spanking a child, period, should not be child abuse. By any sense of the definition. Why? For starters, if administered normally, it provides for appropriate and successful results with behavioral management of children that are incapable of logic and reasoning. Scientific studies have backed this up going all the way back to Skinner and behaviorism techniques using negative reinforcement as behavior modification tools.

Secondly, government has no business dictating, within societal normal limits, how parents raise their children. By creating legislature that outlaws behavioral modification techniques for children by their parents that is not, by society's norms, considered child abuse, they are restricting the freedom for Americans to raise their children how they best see fit. And if the latest opinion polls in the Bay area regarding this issue are any indication, a majority of the people are against the legislation. Even though they are in favor of outlawing spanking administered by non-parental entities (ie. school). So the societal norm would be in favor of spanking as a form of negative behavioral modification (punishment).

Lastly, you cant seem to grasp the concept that there is no perfect scientific approved method of raising children. There are no perfect children and there are no perfect parents. You think there are some but again, there is no general concensus among child psychologists as a whole that certifies spanking as considered endangering the saftey and well being of the child. And since you cant base this upon your own personal experience in raising children, it really puts you in a position of supposition at best.

Latrin, what is your definition of spanking? Your personal definition. And how does that definition differ from the accepted legal definition of physical child abuse?

My personal definition of spanking is an open handed swat to the buttocks of a child accompanied by a sharp rise in volume of verbal scolding when the infraction is directly witnessed, not after the fact. (suprise, shock, and negative physical stimuli to reinforce memory of expected behavior)

This type of negative behavioral management technique (punishment) should only be used when the subject either can not understand reasoning or the logic of why said action was wrong/unacceptable OR refuses to comply or correct said wrong actions after repeated warnings where consequences were listed. And, as Melissa pointed out, it should be administered with objectivity and compassion whenever possible. Keep in mind, that people are human so sometimes emotion can become involved with the parent administering said punishment.

Does this mean that by allowing spanking society will prevent 100% of all children from being abused. No, infact it will not hinder those who abuse intentionally from practicing it one bit. It will just be carried out in greater frequency in the privacy of their own home.

Are you next supporting that homes be monitored by the government to enforce such a law? Will you attempt to prosecute every call you get from a 9 year old accusing his/her parents of spanking them? Will these accusations be credible if they can not be backed up by physical evidence? And how can you justify the long term effects that the law's maximum penalty will have on families who's parents are convicted of spanking and possibly sentenced to jail and or fined up to $1000?

So no, I dont support this piece of legislation and the precedence it will set for many reasons other than just dogma.

Regardless, you seem to be the only one confused about the opposing stances and as a result are relying on dogmatism to justify your dissent of the oposing opinion on spanking without truly understanding where it comes from.

[Latrinsorm]

Scientific studies have backed this up going all the way back to Skinner and behaviorism techniques using negative reinforcement as behavior modification tools."It works" and "it's not abuse" are not interchangeable statements.
Secondly, government has no business dictating, within societal normal limits, how parents raise their children.The thing about society is it's not monolithic. What you and people like you feel is not the same as what "social normal limits" dictate. That said, this is an irrelevant point. You've already agreed that the government is allowed to step in and stop child abuse, the point of contention is what child abuse is.
Lastly, you cant seem to grasp the concept that there is no perfect scientific approved method of raising children.Again, this is an irrelevant point. Nobody's saying that non-physical punishment is perfect.
And since you cant base this upon your own personal experience in raising children, it really puts you in a position of supposition at best.Wasn't it funny how PBs question of the same nature backfired on Tisket? I giggled.
Are you next supporting that homes be monitored by the government to enforce such a law? Will you attempt to prosecute every call you get from a 9 year old accusing his/her parents of spanking them? Will these accusations be credible if they can not be backed up by physical evidence? And how can you justify the long term effects that the law's maximum penalty will have on families who's parents are convicted of spanking and possibly sentenced to jail and or fined up to $1000?These are practical limitations, which again is dodging the issue. That said, these limitations apply just as easily to most child abuse, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this.
for many reasons other than just dogma.You still haven't addressed the core issue. You're quite eloquent on establishing that spanking works and that a nebulously-defined majority approve of it, which has nothing to do with whether it's abuse or not. That is where your dogmatism lies.

If it turns out we can't enforce such a law, then so be it. Saying that an act is morally outrageous but prohibitively difficult to prosecute is leagues removed from saying that an act is morally permissible.

[Gan]

You conveinently neglected to respond to one part Latrin.



You still haven't addressed the core issue. You're quite eloquent on establishing that spanking works and that a nebulously-defined majority approve of it, which has nothing to do with whether it's abuse or not. That is where your dogmatism lies.




Latrin, what is your definition of spanking? Your personal definition. And how does that definition differ from the accepted legal definition of physical child abuse?

My personal definition of spanking is an open handed swat to the buttocks of a child accompanied by a sharp rise in volume of verbal scolding when the infraction is directly witnessed, not after the fact. (suprise, shock, and negative physical stimuli to reinforce memory of expected behavior)


Spanking is not defined as abuse, by societal norms, precedence, and established law. I'm against legislators attempting to change the definition of said law(s). Spanking, by my definition, and by society's definition, is not abuse, period. So why should we allow legislators to change it when their sole purpose is to govern the people by representing the people (by majority)?



These are practical limitations, which again is dodging the issue. That said, these limitations apply just as easily to most child abuse, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this.
Incorrect, these are the very issues that the public must consider when allowing legislators to govern aspects of private life. Much the same as legislating what consenting adults do in their own bedroom. There comes a point where the line of freedom can not be crossed. IMO this is that line, what people do in their own homes. And until society demonstrates otherwise, it should not be infringed upon.



Again, this is an irrelevant point. Nobody's saying that non-physical punishment is perfect.
Yes, you and the legislators pushing this bill in CA are by saying that physical punishment is not allowable. By eliminating one form, you are condoning the acceptance and practice of the other. These two forms of child rearing are not mutually exclusive, and should not be treated as such.



You still haven't addressed the core issue. You're quite eloquent on establishing that spanking works and that a nebulously-defined majority approve of it, which has nothing to do with whether it's abuse or not. That is where your dogmatism lies.
Actually I have, as quoted again in the above paragraphs, spanking, by my definition, legal definition and by society at large, is not abuse. Perhaps its you that has not addressed the core issue. A little introspection here on your part would be prudent.

At this point, your stance, as well as the legislators who are seeking passage, seem to be on the short end of the stick.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/SpankMe.gif

[Drew2]

A red X definitely proves your point, Sean.

[Latrinsorm]

You conveinently neglected to respond to one part Latrin.I felt that three statements of "this is a red herring" were enough. Four just made the post unwieldly.
So why should we allow legislators to change it when their sole purpose is to govern the people by representing the people (by majority)?The purpose of the government is to represent the people's best interest. If a poll says people think Jim Crow laws are a-ok, you would certainly not suggest the that government enforce Jim Crow laws.
Yes, you and the legislators pushing this bill in CA are by saying that physical punishment is not allowable. By eliminating one form, you are condoning the acceptance and practice of the other. These two forms of child rearing are not mutually exclusive, and should not be treated as such."Ethically acceptable" isn't the same as "perfect".
There comes a point where the line of freedom can not be crossed. IMO this is that line, what people do in their own homes.You've already agreed that the government is allowed to step in when the child is being abused, which certainly happens with people in their own homes.
spanking, by my definition, legal definition..."by definition" is synonymous with dogmatism, as you've dismissed all opposing positions out of hand. The bizarre thing about citing legal definition is you make this sound like a challenged play in the NFL. If there was already a law (one of those odd archaic ones) on the books that spanking was illegal, would you support keeping it that way?

I reiterate, the only person to make something approaching a case for either side of the issue is Melissa.
and by society at largea) If everybody (besides you) jumped off a bridge, should you? If everyone spanks their child, does that make it right? Can you coherently give different answers to these questions?
b) Your disdain for society's discernment is well-documented in threads on voter reform. Why are you so confident that "society" is capable of discernment when it comes to ethical behavior?

[Gan]

:rofl: @ Latrin.

When you answer my questions, I'll give yours the courtesy in response.

Until then, I'm certainly glad you dont represent me as a parent/family living in the US. Of course, once you get out from under your parents roof and experience life first hand then you perspective might change into something a little more realistic. I'm not going to hold my breath for that though.

:whistle:

[Apathy]

Children who weren't spanked tend to get beat up as adults by adults who were spanked as children.

It's a lesson about when to stop doing something wrong. Everyone learns the lesson at some point, it just happens to be harsher the later in life it occurs.

The bill itself sounds like a political game.

[Latrinsorm]

Of course, once you get out from under your parents roof and experience life first hand then you perspective might change into something a little more realistic. I'm not going to hold my breath for that though.This is what's known as an "ad hominem" attack, ladies and gents.

I'm not sure which of your various red herring questions you want me to answer, but seeing as how they're, well... red herrings, I'm not going to expend any energy trying to figure it out. I guess this is the part where you post something about snickering at the """rational""" Latrinsorm?

[Gan]

The bill itself sounds like a political game.

It definately received its 15 minutes, even if it was an extremist position. I think the response it received from the residents of the bay area, as reflected in the paper, summed up the overall opinion of it quite nicely.

[Bartlett]

Spanking is nowhere near abuse. I have never heard of this whiplash business, probably because it occurs between rarely and never. The idea of creating a harsher law to combat something that is already against the law and not properly enforced is, in a word, retarded.

A proper spanking will leave no mark, the pain will be brief, if any at all, and the administrator of the bum bum swat of doom will reinforce the situation with conversation. Does it have psychological effects? Absolutely, and that is the point- as with any other form of punishment.

Children are much more physically resilient than anyone posting on these boards. If a child comes in with a broken bone, abuse is automatically considered because of the sheer force required to do so with the limbs of a child. A spanking will be less force than the child falling flat on their rear. Perhaps we should put parents in jail for a year if they let their child fall while learning to walk because the kid might get whiplash.

Spanking has an overall positive result, and done properly will not hurt the child at all. Long hair, however, has been known to sever off fingers toes, and manhood. My son actually just got a nasty gash from my wife's hair being wrapped around his toe. She should be in jail for not shaving her head I guess.

I am all for protecting children, which is why spankings are necessary. Right and Wrong are the most important things a parent can teach their child, and this is highly neglected in today's society where existentialism is preached in our schools and everywere else you turn. That said, if I see someone punching a kid, I will be stepping in.

I feel bad for those who have been physically abused, but making what didn't happen to you against the law, will not stop what did happen to you from happening. Learn it, live it, and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

[Jazuela]

Agreed with Bartlett. And with whoever posted that adults should have to get licensed to breed, heh.

COMMON scenario with 3-year-olds:

In the kitchen, while mommy is making supper.

Mom goes to the fridge to get the brussels sprouts out.
While she's there, Little Johnny toddles up to the stove and reaches up to find out what that steamy stuff is. Mom turns, sees her son is about to get 3rd degree burns on his arms and possibly turn the pot of boiling water over, burning the rest of his little body, and grabs his arm, jerks him away, and gives his hand a smack.

The abuse in this situation? The brussels sprouts. Fortunately they're forgotten for the moment, because mom just saved her son from massive, debilitating, permanent, disfiguring, and life-threatening burns. AND - she reinforced the rule in no uncertain terms: Try touching boiling water and/or a hot stove, and you will get hurt.

Next scene: Little 5-year-old Susie is skipping down the sidewalk near mommy, and sees a kittycat crossing the street. Overjoyed, she darts into the street to catch it. Mommy goes into SuperMom mode, swoops down, grabs Susie, carries her back to the sidewalk, and gives her a swat on the ass with a resounding "LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE CROSSING THE STREET!"

Mommy just saved Susie from being run over by the SUV that was coming their way, and reinforced the lesson about looking both ways. Her crime? Other than not holding the kid's hand tightly, preventing her from darting into the street in the first place, none. I don't care how much Susie screams and hollers from being spanked, mommy just saved the brat's life. And - more often than not, Susie is simply surprised and shocked and is screaming because of that, not because of any pain or damage to her person.

[DeV]

Children who weren't spanked tend to get beat up as adults by adults who were spanked as children.
:rofl:

It's nice to know they're contemplating laws to protect children from being spanked by their parents and none to protect adults from being spanked by their significant others. Hello, double standard alert.

/jk

On a serious note I believe spanking and non-spanking works. In the non-spanking category: verbal reinforcement, time outs, and consequences for ones actions should be the disciplinary methods of choice. When a child persists in his lack of compliance then spanking might become an option for some parents as I know it was an option for mine. We weren't spanked often and thankfully my parents had alot of patience. It all comes down to what kind of discipline a child responds to and a parent making an educated decision on what methods to utilize.


All children are different thus they should be disciplined according to what reinforcements will change the negative bahaviors and accentuate the positives. Of course when you are raising a serial killer none of the above will apply in your case and you may need to seek professional assistance in the form of individual or family therapy.

I'd really like to know though... just how in the hell this legislation would be enforced and what affect this would have on our already overswamped child protective services in state and federal government.

[Jolena]

On a serious note I believe spanking and non-spanking works. In the non-spanking category: verbal reinforcement, time outs, and consequences for ones actions should be the disciplinary methods of choice. When a child persists in his lack of compliance then spanking might become an option for some parents as I know it was an option for mine. We weren't spanked often and thankfully my parents had alot of patience. It all comes down to what kind of discipline a child responds to and a parent making an educated decision on what methods to utilize.


All children are different thus they should be disciplined according to what reinforcements will change the negative bahaviors and accentuate the positives.


Bears repeating.

[TheEschaton]

Timeouts are awesome. I never considered them a punishment.

[Latrinsorm]

where existentialism is preached in our schools What do you think existentialism is?
Spanking is nowhere near abuse.Let's examine your case.
"A proper spanking will leave no mark" - Neither will psychological abuse. Not leaving a mark is not equivalent with not being abuse.
"the pain will be brief, if any at all" - This is certainly a point in your favor.
"Does it have psychological effects? Absolutely, and that is the point- as with any other form of punishment." - Having psychological effects is necessary, certainly, but what I'm not convinced of is that spanking has no unnecessary, lasting, detrimental effects.
"I have never heard of this whiplash business, probably because it occurs between rarely and never." - Science is not built on scorn, however. Science is built on repeated proof. Until someone can show either way, I would suppose it was best to err on the side of caution. I recognize that this isn't everyone's position in this matter, but I would suggest that it is a position that everyone does in fact hold at times.
Mommy just saved Susie from being run over by the SUV that was coming their way, and reinforced the lesson about looking both ways.The flaw in your analysis is that in neither situation was a strike necessary. I've yet to run out into the middle of the street without looking, and I've never been spanked. Certainly we cannot suppose that I was so precocious and brilliant a child that my example is irrepresentative.

My guess is this is where Ganalon or PB chimes in with "OH AND HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU RAISED" or perhaps "NO CHILD-REARING METHOD IS PERFECT AND ALL KIDS ARE DIFFERENT". In the interests of saving our elder colleagues' energy, I'll address these points now:
Yes, all kids are different, and it is not necessarily the case that what works for one child will work for another. No one can suggest that this makes any method of discipline allowable, as we are already agreed that child abuse does exist. As such, we again come to the central and only point: whether spanking is abuse or not. It is totally irrelevant whether some children can only be disciplined with spanking or higher, as it is the case that some children are incorrigible even when faced with spanking or actual beatings. No one makes the case that beatings should therefore be legal.

[Gan]

Timeouts are awesome. I never considered them a punishment.

Ditto

[DeV]

There are a few different options one can employ when it comes to administering a timeout I learned. A few of the methods are downright harsh.

I take it you were never made to stand in a corner with both arms raised over your head facing the wall for a pre-determined amout of time.

Neither have I, but my observations led me to believe that getting a swat on the behind would have been a much welcomed occurrence, which not only saves time but pales in comparison to holding up a blank wall for 15 minutes.

[Gan]

As such, we again come to the central and only point: whether spanking is abuse or not.

And one which you have yet to answer in order to justify your opinion, or moreso, the dissenting of others opinions.

[TheEschaton]

I have, and I, being a stubborn child, always considered it a game....


...which I always fucking won.

-TheE-, master of standing on one foot in the corner.

[Gan]

There are a few different options one can employ when it comes to administering a timeout I learned. A few of the methods are downright harsh.

I take it you were never made to stand in a corner with both arms raised over your head facing the wall for a pre-determined amout of time.

Neither have I, but my observations led me to believe that getting a swat on the behind would have been a much welcomed occurrence, which not only saves time but pales in comparison to holding up a blank wall for 15 minutes.

The circle on the wall where my nose was supposed to go was fun. I used to rub off the circle with my nose, which pissed off my step-father.

He also used to make me hold a baseball bat with my arms out in front of me. When I finally could not lift the bat, sans tears or any other effect he was looking for, then the beating commenced.

Thats where I made the determination that parents should be smarter than their children.

[Gan]

My favorite punishment was being bannished to my room. I did not have a TV or video games so it was considered an ok place for punishment.

So I would sprawl out on the floor and read books. I had this great encyclopedia set called the books of knowledge that had great illustrations with grade school entries on the things of the world. Anytime I could have alone, only-child time, away from my parents was a treasure indeed. ;)

[Skeeter]

I think the biggest argument in favor of spanking is that non-spanked kids may turn out like Latrin

[Latrinsorm]

And one which you have yet to answer in order to justify your opinion.Is this the part where I use your "creative reading" line back on you and put, I don't know, a :smug: emoticon?

Does spanking cause lasting physical damage in a nontrivial percentage of cases? I don't know, you don't know, Bartlett doesn't know, Melissa doesn't know, Ted Kennedy doesn't know, 'Melo doesn't know. Whenever I'm presented with a scenario where one choice may seriously injure an infant and the other has no chance of doing so, I must confess that I'm strongly inclined to not take the chance. Why would I? Why would you? Clearly you believe the chance is negligible or even zero, as was evidenced in earlier posts. Do you have any scientific basis for this belief? If you do, why have you been so reticent in providing it? If you don't, must you believe that the opposing position is simply inconceivable? Are you convinced that our supposed medical knowledge of this area is complete and perfect?

[Skeeter]

My favorite punishment was being bannished to my room. I did not have a TV or video games so it was considered an ok place for punishment.

So I would sprawl out on the floor and read books. I had this great encyclopedia set called the books of knowledge that had great illustrations with grade school entries on the things of the world. Anytime I could have alone, only-child time, away from my parents was a treasure indeed. ;)

This was a probably less of an idea of punishment for your parents and just a chance to get you out of their hair for awhile.

[Gan]

This was a probably less of an idea of punishment for your parents and just a chance to get you out of their hair for awhile.

The only reason why I deem it a punishment was because the edict of bannishment was only delivered when I pissed one or both parental units off.

Looking back, it was a nice equilibrium point for both parties.

[Drew2]

My favorite punishment was being bannished to my room. I did not have a TV or video games so it was considered an ok place for punishment.

So I would sprawl out on the floor and read books. I had this great encyclopedia set called the books of knowledge that had great illustrations with grade school entries on the things of the world. Anytime I could have alone, only-child time, away from my parents was a treasure indeed. ;)

Wow. That explains so much about you.

[Gan]

Is this the part where I use your "creative reading" line back on you and put, I don't know, a :smug: emoticon?

Does spanking cause lasting physical damage in a nontrivial percentage of cases? I don't know, you don't know, Bartlett doesn't know, Melissa doesn't know, Ted Kennedy doesn't know, 'Melo doesn't know. Whenever I'm presented with a scenario where one choice may seriously injure an infant and the other has no chance of doing so, I must confess that I'm strongly inclined to not take the chance. Why would I? Why would you? Clearly you believe the chance is negligible or even zero, as was evidenced in earlier posts. Do you have any scientific basis for this belief? If you do, why have you been so reticent in providing it? If you don't, must you believe that the opposing position is simply inconceivable? Are you convinced that our supposed medical knowledge of this area is complete and perfect?

No, this is where I use the line that if you had a child and had direct experience in behavioral management, professionally even, (other than trying to call people out on an internet bbs) you would have a better grasp of what works with children and what doesnt, even if it is on a limited scope of just within your familial unit.

But as it stands, you want the world to know that you are perfect and required no discipline whatsoever. And that any form of discipline to the contrary could be considered abuse. Taken one step further, I bet you dont leave the house (your parents of course) for fear of something bad that could possibly happen to you. I bet you pray to Al Gore every day, thanking him for inventing the internet so you could interact with other humans outside your four walls.

[DeV]

He also used to make me hold a baseball bat with my arms out in front of me. When I finally could not lift the bat, sans tears or any other effect he was looking for, then the beating commenced.


One of my friend's does this with her young son. He doesn't get spanked, but he gets made to stand in the corner with both of his arms up. If he even looks like he's making a game out of it she gets a weighted book for him to hold out in front of him to keep him from doing other things.

Parenting is tough as hell. I'm just glad I had an older sister so she could fuck up while being bad and I could learn how to be bad while not fucking up.

[Gan]

Wow. That explains so much about you.

ROFL

Indeed it does. I still require alone time to this day. Where I can just put up with myself. Sometimes people just get on my nerves, any people, all people.

:lol:

(Its also the reason why I read a lot)

[Latrinsorm]

you want the world to know that you are perfect and required no discipline whatsoever.Creative reading on your part? :smug:
And that any form of discipline to the contrary could be considered abuse.The point I'm trying to make is not that it could be considered abuse but that it could actually be abuse. When it comes to infants and extremely young children, I think we should make sure we're not abusing them. It's a crazy and outlandish position, I know, but I'm just not a big fan of child abuse.
I bet you dont leave the house (your parents of course) for fear of something bad that could possibly happen to you.I'll take that bet for $20,000. I'd take the other one too but it's hard to prove a mental state. You can paypal it to me whenever you get a chance.

[Jazuela]

The phrase "time out" didn't exist when I was a kid, but "go to your room" did. My response to that:

"Make me."

It got to the point where I hated being in my own bedroom. I had no sanctuary of my own, which is what a bedroom -should- be for a kid.

"Stand in a corner" returned "Make me."

No supper for you tonight! returned "So, I'm not hungry anyway."

I was one of those kids who didn't respond to anything other than a smack. And I often didn't respond to that, either. I was a hellion :)

[Gan]

You can paypal it to me whenever you get a chance.

I tried to paypal you a clue, but the service could not accept that type of transaction. Guess you'll just have to manage as you have been. :(

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Douchey McJesus

Does spanking cause lasting physical damage in a nontrivial percentage of cases? I don't know, you don't know, Bartlett doesn't know, Melissa doesn't know, Ted Kennedy doesn't know, 'Melo doesn't know. Whenever I'm presented with a scenario where one choice may seriously injure an infant and the other has no chance of doing so, I must confess that I'm strongly inclined to not take the chance. Why would I? Why would you? Clearly you believe the chance is negligible or even zero, as was evidenced in earlier posts. Do you have any scientific basis for this belief? If you do, why have you been so reticent in providing it? If you don't, must you believe that the opposing position is simply inconceivable? Are you convinced that our supposed medical knowledge of this area is complete and perfect?

What's behind door #2? Non-Physical punishment? No punishment at all? If your contention is really that spanking (correctly) = chance of serious injury so a parent should use an alternate form of punishment to err on the side of caution what evidence is there that these punishments can't possibly injure your child's psyche? If your point is that spanking can possibly be done incorrectly and therefore injure a child what is your counter for parents who don't know how to correctly use non-physical punishment and risk emotionally damaging their children?

[Latrinsorm]

what is your counter for parents who don't know how to correctly use non-physical punishment and risk emotionally damaging their children?Because we have to do something and it's a lot harder to do serious emotional damage to beings that can't communicate very well.

I prefer the name Muhammad McJesus, btw.

[Skeeter]

based on what proof? You're using pure speculation as the basis of your argument. You're guilty of the same thing you chide everyone else for.

[Sean]

"Because we have to do something and it's a lot harder to do serious emotional damage to beings that can't communicate very well."

So whats your argument against spanking in situations where child's age > 3 years old? Which really appears, to me anyway, to be where this discussion has gone.

"I prefer the name Muhammad McJesus, btw."

Yes but it's less accurate unless of course Muhammad = Douchey.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually I have a book here in my hand that talks about how children learn language. I'm waving it in the air, but I doubt you guys can see it. Drs. Siegler and Alibali and 40 pages of references suggests to me that they know their stuff, and kids under three just don't communicate like we do.

[Latrinsorm]

So whats your argument against spanking in situations where child's age > 3 years old? Which really appears, to me anyway, to be where this discussion has gone.Ganalon's tried to take this discussion in all kinds of directions. I've tried to point out where this has happened, and if it appears that we're also talking about 3+ kids, I apologize for incompleteness. I am not trying to make the case that spanking at all ages is conceivably risky. I'm only addressing the proposed legislation here.

[Gan]

Actually I have a book here in my hand that talks about how children learn language. I'm waving it in the air, but I doubt you guys can see it. Drs. Siegler and Alibali and 40 pages of references suggests to me that they know their stuff, and kids under three just don't communicate like we do.

So that means that logic and reasoning arent such a good thing eh?

If they cant understand the big words, do you use sign language? baby talk? pantomime? Will you jump out in front of a moving vehicle to demonstrate why its a bad thing? Or throwing the kid out in front of the car a few times so they get the point?

(I forgot to add the colored lights like they used in Close Encounters of the Third Kind)

You crack me up.

:lol:

[Gan]

Just so Latrin doesnt get lost again in all his fancy idealism...



Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

Aimed at 3 and under, but written broadly to include all 'children'.

[Gan]

Bottom line, legislators need to leave parenting up to the parents.

If a medical doctor/nurse determines that the child is being exposed to abusive physical behavior through direct evidence of physical trauma (current or historical) then appropriate steps can be made under the direction of existing laws, already established by precedence, that deal with that issue.

[CrystalTears]

Actually I have a book here in my hand that talks about how children learn language. I'm waving it in the air, but I doubt you guys can see it. Drs. Siegler and Alibali and 40 pages of references suggests to me that they know their stuff, and kids under three just don't communicate like we do.
So if they can't communicate in the same way, how do you propose parents enforce something to them without any kind of physical contact? You will counter everything but I haven't seen you propose a reasonable alternative.

[Gan]

You will counter everything but I haven't seen you propose a reasonable alternative.

Because he cant. All he can do is dissemble why spanking should be illegal.

[Latrinsorm]

So that means that logic and reasoning arent such a good thing eh?Yeah, the concepts of "stop" and "you were a mistake and I don't love you" are about equal in conceptual difficulty.
You will counter everything but I haven't seen you propose a reasonable alternative.As I said earlier, there are cases of children who cannot be disciplined even with mild physical punishment. This does not in any way convince people here that more severe physical punishment is appropriate and should be made legal. Why would the same argument convince someone that mild physical punishment is appropriate?

I didn't think this distinction would have to be made, but restraint does not imply a spanking occurs.

[ElanthianSiren]

If a child is raised correctly with the right amount of respect for the parent, just knowing the parent is dissatisfied is enough deterrant. People, in general, have a strong drive to please their idols; whether they be parents, gods, or rolemodels. The idea that you can't get across your displeasure without spanking is, in more cases than not, patently false.

Human brains release oxytocin, an opiate-like substance, in response to pleasurable stimulus. Frequent praise and positive reinforcement, even in small measures like toilet training, crawling, turning over, and baby talk, when a child has done well contrasts very sharply with negative stimulus or the absence of stimulus. Theoretically, the child is going to strive for the positive stimulus because humans strive for pleasure, not against it.

-M

[Gan]

Yeah, the concepts of "stop" and "you were a mistake and I don't love you" are about equal in conceptual difficulty.As I said earlier, there are cases of children who cannot be disciplined even with mild physical punishment. This does not in any way convince people here that more severe physical punishment is appropriate and should be made legal. Why would the same argument convince someone that mild physical punishment is appropriate?

I didn't think this distinction would have to be made, but restraint does not imply a spanking occurs.

And more dissembling.

[Sean of the Thread]

If a child is raised correctly with the right amount of respect for the parent, just knowing the parent is dissatisfied is enough deterrant.

-M


False.

[Olanan]

People respect their parents?

No, no, that was a joke. I just wanted the 100th post. :)

[Jazuela]

If a child is raised correctly with the right amount of respect for the parent, just knowing the parent is dissatisfied is enough deterrant.

-M

If a child is raised correctly, and is a brat anyway, no amount of 'correct raising' will convince a kid to behave just so he doesn't disappoint his mom.

Some kids are just brats. Like I was. And a whole lot worse. You can do everything "right" - everything "correctly" and still end up with a kid who doesn't give a shit about respect. Or worse, you could still end up with a kid who turns out to be a psychopathic axe murderer. There is no such thing as bringing up a kid "correctly." There -is- however such a thing as causing harm. Spanking is not causing harm, and can be a very effective instructional tool for some of life's lessons, among those who - regardless of their parents' "correct" attempts, simply will not respond appropriately to "please" or explanations or disappointed pouts from daddy.

[ElanthianSiren]

I believe I said more often than not. There are kids that are brats, and there are underlying causes for that, but people will choose pleasure over pain in most cases; old, young, rich, or poor.

-M

edit: You'll also note that I'm not against spanking; go back a few pages. I'm against some ways I've seen physical punishment administered because it's counter productive.

[CrystalTears]

As I said earlier, there are cases of children who cannot be disciplined even with mild physical punishment. This does not in any way convince people here that more severe physical punishment is appropriate and should be made legal. Why would the same argument convince someone that mild physical punishment is appropriate?

I didn't think this distinction would have to be made, but restraint does not imply a spanking occurs.
So you're basically saying you don't have a reasonable alternative. That's all I wanted to know. Saying spanking isn't the solution isn't an alternative.

[Sean of the Thread]

The belt is a viable alternative method.

[Latrinsorm]

So you're basically saying you don't have a reasonable alternative. That's all I wanted to know. Saying spanking isn't the solution isn't an alternative.Suppose you were to come across someone disciplining his or her child with an acetylene torch. Suppose, upon being forcibly removed from his or her child, this person made the claim that such extreme measures were necessary to discipline this particular child, and that nothing else worked. Would you then concede that using an acetylene torch on a child is a permissible strategy, as you could provide no alternative this person found "reasonable"?

Of course you wouldn't, and no one here would either.

There has been one salient point to this argument and one alone: is spanking a child under a certain age abuse? Personal child-rearing experiences, practical matters of enforcement, and reasonable alternatives are irrelevant, have been irrelevant throughout the discussion, and will be irrelevant until an agreement on the salient point is reached.

[Gan]

Or answer your own salient point, since you've been asked several times to already.

Answer your salient point, and defend your position... if you can.

[Latrinsorm]

I can't decide if it would be contradictory to describe the sort of reading where one ignores words as "creative". On the one hand, it is certainly a novel way of reading. On the other, in effect one is destroying the text by omission. I'll just stick with the :smug: emoticon.

Here are some links for you, Ganalon, listed here for rhetorical effect:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=552399&postcount=83
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=552336&postcount=76
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=551542&postcount=58 (toward the end)

On the off chance that your computer freezes the instant this post appears on the screen, I won't leave you in suspense:

It cannot be said with anything approaching certainty whether spanking is abusive or not. There is not enough cited evidence.
Given that we cannot be sure, how can we opt for the riskier choice when to err is to endanger infants? I'm not talking about Cartesian surety here, a well-done study or two would be fine.

[CrystalTears]

Suppose you were to come across someone disciplining his or her child with an acetylene torch...
Not even going to bother with the rest of it because it's already abuse and there are laws to cover that for any age.


There has been one salient point to this argument and one alone: is spanking a child under a certain age abuse? Personal child-rearing experiences, practical matters of enforcement, and reasonable alternatives are irrelevant, have been irrelevant throughout the discussion, and will be irrelevant until an agreement on the salient point is reached.
You continue to talk as though ANY spanking or ANY physical touch of any kind is wrong. Some are saying it isn't so.

I realize you were never touched and were a pristine version of a godly child and didn't need discipline, but others aren't as fortunate to have your experience and sometimes a light swat on the behind (OMG the basic definition of a spanking) is necessary.

And you STILL haven't answered the question...
What do you consider a reasonable alternative to spanking, since a child under the age of 3 cannot communicate like the rest of us can?

[TheEschaton]

Whenever these threads disintegrate to Latrin vs. someone thinking reasonably, I always glaze over and skip to the end. What I miss?

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

You continue to talk as though Not even going to bother with the rest of it, as I've already addressed it, multiple times, at great length.
And you STILL haven't answered the question...The question is irrelevant, but I have in fact answered it.

To spare theEschaton's eyes, no doubt weakened by the omnipresent filth of Boston, this will be the last activity in this thread for me.

[Gan]

this will be the last activity in this thread for me.

:clap:

And he leaves with as much contribution to the thread as he started with.

:lol:

[DeV]

Thank God.

[CrystalTears]

Go me!

[Gan]

A controversial bill to ban spanking in California took a dramatic turn Thursday at the state Capitol, NBC11's Mike Luery reported.

The assembly's second-ranking Democrat, Sally Lieber, entered the Capitol Thursday to deliver her anticipated no-spanking bill.

The bill originally would have banned parents from spanking kids under the age of 3 years old, but the Democrats were ridiculed in editorials and comedy shows, Luery reported.

Now, the bill does not use the word spanking.

The latest version of the bill outlaws the use of a stick, rod or belt to hit a child, striking a child with a closed fist, and striking a child under the age of 3 years old on the face or hand.

"It does not ban spanking," Lieber said. "I personally am very passionate about banning all physical abuse, but the votes are simply not there."

more...

http://www.nbc11.com/politics/11085867/detail.html?rss=bay&psp=news
_________________________________

Imagine that.

[CrystalTears]

Heh, who knew.

[Sean of the Thread]

:D

[Bartlett]

The latest version of the bill outlaws the use of a stick, rod or belt to hit a child, striking a child with a closed fist, and striking a child under the age of 3 years old on the face or hand.

This is the "fixed" response to the mass public thinking this lady is retarded? I can see how our new lib-ruled government will make this country a better place.