Spare the Rod.

StudentDad

PDN wrote: »

No, often you have communicated yourself perfectly well but individuals choose to ignore what has been communicated. Every time the police have to use physical restraint, it does not mean a failure of communication.

There are people who will try to do whatever they want, irrespective of how that will hurt others, and sometimes physical force is the only way to restrain them.

Your use of weasel words is really dragging this whole debate into the fantastical.

If a parent is genuinely abusing a child, physically as in beating them, or emotionally by roaring at them at all the time, then, yes, a civilised society should act to protect the child However, an occasional smack appropriately delivered does not constitute abuse.


Sorry, that is total nonsense. And very poor logic.

An occasional smack, as part of an overall parenting strategy, would not teach that it is the 'only' way to communicate unless smacking was the 'only' form of communication used by a parent.

We're just going to have to disagree. To my mind there are no acceptable grounds for the physical assault of children. The distinction you seem to have forgotten is that the scenario where you describe the police baton charge is between adults and they choose to be there. The child does not choose to get hit and as such dressing up the hitting of children under the guise of discipline is frankly pathetic.

SD

JimiTime

StudentDad wrote: »

dressing up the hitting of children under the guise of discipline is frankly pathetic.

SD

Oh the Irony:rolleyes: Pejoratives and no reasoning is all you have offered.

StudentDad

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh the Irony:rolleyes: Pejoratives and no reasoning is all you have offered.

Reasoning? I dont' need to offer 'reasons' as to why not hitting children is a good idea. If you need to be persuaded not to hit children, I really feel sorry for you.

SD

PDN

Anyone remember that hilarious bit of film that appeared on newscasts a few years ago? It was during some anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation demo in Sweden, and a young man had just lobbed a petrol bomb at the Swedish police. He turned back to posture at the cameras - and a Swedish cop (apparently the Swedes are not as experienced at handling yobbish protesters with kid gloves as some other police forces) actually shot the guy in the buttocks!

The shocked and outraged look on his face was priceless! It was a case of, "How dare anyone do this to me? Why should I suffer any ill consequences as a result of my actions? Why can't I throw molotov cocktails at policemen with impunity?"

We do our kids a grave disservice when we fail to teach them that their actions have consequences - and sometimes those consequences are painful!

PDN

StudentDad wrote: »

Reasoning? I dont' need to offer 'reasons' as to why not hitting children is a good idea. If you need to be persuaded not to hit children, I really feel sorry for you.

If you're not prepared to offer reasons then you're wasting everyone's time on an internet discussion board.

PDN

drkpower wrote: »

I stuck in a '?' to allow you to correct me if I was wrong, and if so, to give you the opportunity to elaborate. And would you like to answer the questions I asked or just comment on my presumed presumptiousness?

I can't think of any justification other than violent behaviour for giving a child a smack. I guess perhaps to stop them harming themselves, if they were insisting on running into traffic or sticking their fingers into electric sockets?

StudentDad

PDN wrote: »

If you're not prepared to offer reasons then you're wasting everyone's time on an internet discussion board.

It surely should be fairly self evident that physical violence (of any type) towards children is not acceptable behaviour in an adult. To condone such behaviour is mind boggling.

SD

JimiTime

drkpower wrote: »

Does 'hitting' a child promote violence?

Smacking a child appropriately does not promote violence.

And if so, why does toning down the physical punishment a notch suddenly have no effect whatsoever on promoting violence?

Because its as different as sex and rape. There is a two faceted problem you have in your approach to this:

1. Thinking smacking and violence are one in the same, and
2. Violence is never appropriate in the world.

Neither of which are related to each other.

wolfsbane

drkpower wrote: »

Imprisonment is 'non-violent' - it is akin to a childhod punishment of grounding.
State armed protective forces do not act to punish; they act to protect - that is analagous to childhood smacking - it would be akin to physically pulling a child away from attacking another child (if the child didnt respond to verbal instruction), which would no doubt be appropriate - and necessary.

Very few would consent to spend years in prison if they knew they would not be subjected to violence to make them do so. And quite a few forget that from time to time in prison and the riot squad are called to remind them.

Armed forces often punish to protect. They do not merely intervene to stop invading armies murdering, raping and plundering. They take it to them, invading their homeland, by violence forcing them to stop AND to pay for their offences.

Adults can be reasoned with easier than children - and they know the consequences if they persist. Fines, imprisonment, backed up by physical force if necessary. If they thought they would not be so held to account, society would be run by the criminals. [Don't tempt me to comment. ]

The child too will exploit the lack of sanctions if he knows that refusal to co-operate with lesser sanctions will not be followed by physical force.

_________________________________________________________________
1 Samuel 3:13 For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them.

JimiTime

StudentDad wrote: »

I really feel sorry for you.

SD

No you don't, that is merely a condescending lie to try make yourself out to be standing on high ground. The fact is, you once again have done what you have done from the start. Provided no reasoning, just rhetoric and pejoratives.

StudentDad

JimiTime wrote: »

No you don't, that is merely a condescending lie to try make yourself out to be standing on high ground. The fact is, you once again have done what you have done from the start. Provided no reasoning, just rhetoric and pejoratives.

Oh get off the stage, there are no valid reasons for the physical disciplining of children. Were you to attack an adult in the same way you advocate the attack on a child, you'd be before a judge trying to account for yourself.

SD

PDN

StudentDad wrote: »

It surely should be fairly self evident that physical violence (of any type) towards children is not acceptable behaviour in an adult. To condone such behaviour is mind boggling.

Well it isn't self-evident. And your failure to provide reasoning hasn't made it any more evident.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adults can be reasoned with easier than children

I'm beginning to doubt that:)

drkpower

PDN wrote: »

I can't think of any justification other than violent behaviour for giving a child a smack. I guess perhaps to stop them harming themselves, if they were insisting on running into traffic or sticking their fingers into electric sockets?

I wouldnt consider the latter to be 'physical discipline' - it is more like necesssary action to prevent injury - anyone who is against that needs to be removed from children pretty quickly.

As for physical discipline in the case of violent behaviour by a child, I have slightly more sympathy for it. I still think it runs the risk of promoting violence (and the suggestion that violence always warrants a 'violent' response is usually not a good one) but given the behaviour it is seeking to curtail, it may warrant it - Im undecided. I do have a serious concern, though, about routine physical discipline for non-violent childhood indiscretions.

JimiTime

StudentDad wrote: »

Oh get off the stage, there are no valid reasons for the physical disciplining of children.

What happened you feeling sorry for me:rolleyes: Anyway, your view here you are entitled to hold. I'm happy that you didn't use a pejorative, and I think thats the most I could ask for.

drkpower

JimiTime wrote: »

Smacking a child appropriately does not promote violence..

And you criticise the other poster for providing no reasoning......:eek:

JimiTime wrote: »

Because its as different as sex and rape. There is a two faceted problem you have in your approach to this:

1. Thinking smacking and violence are one in the same, and
2. Violence is never appropriate in the world.

Neither of which are related to each other.

The rape/sex analogy is clearly ridiculous and anyone with sense knows why.

I never said 'smacking and violence are one in the same'; I said they differ by degree, which they do. And if there is a risk that 'hitting' a child promotes violence, which it does, there must be a risk (albeit a lesser one) that 'smacking' a child also does. The real question is whether that risk is worth running in an effort to discipline and teach a child effectively. As I have said earlier, in certain very limited specific circumstances, I could see the balance being in favour but it would involve occasions of truly reprehensible behaviour. The balance, in my view, would never warrant using 'smacking' as a routine tool of discipline.

JimiTime

drkpower wrote: »

I do have a serious concern, though, about routine physical discipline for non-violent childhood indiscretions.

I personally think how its administered is the big issue. I don't think in a good parent-child relationship, discipline in the context of misbehaviour and consaquence (Rather than discipline in encouraging focus etc) could be described as a 'routine'. I was smacked as a child very, very rarely. I knew it was justified when it happened and why it happened. Funnily enough, the piece of discipline that stands out in my mind is an occasion where I was put to bed unjustly. Of course, its left me with no resentment or anything, but at the time it was a big deal to me. Nothing to do with what was happening to me, but rather it was injust, i.e. It wasn't something I did.

Consistancy is the key to discipline, Love is the key to parenting, and moderation is the key to smacking.

JimiTime

drkpower wrote: »

And you criticise the other poster for providing no reasoning......:eek:

Yes I do. Very concisely and accurately. There is no comparrison. If you can't see that from the interactions on this thread then *shrugs*

I never said 'smacking and violence are one in the same';

I wont bother arguing so. You said the principal of smacking promoting violence was the same as the principal of violence promoting violence. If you think the above though, thats fine.

I said they differ by degree, which they do.

They differ by so much more than that. Its not just about how hard you hit. Its motive, attitude etc.

And if there is a risk that 'hitting' a child promotes violence, which it does, there must be a risk (albeit a lesser one) that 'smacking' a child also does.

Again, I don't think you are seeing the gravity of difference between smacking and violence. (I used sex/rape to point out how different they are but you didn't seem to get it) Its as different as apples and oranges, hows that?

The real question is whether that risk is worth running in an effort to discipline and teach a child effectively. As I have said earlier, in certain very limited specific circumstances, I could see the balance being in favour but it would involve occasions of truly reprehensible behaviour. The balance, in my view, would never warrant using 'smacking' as a routine tool of discipline.

I think you need to define what promoting violence entails? Also, you need to detatch 'smacking' from 'violence'. there really is a WORLD of difference. As I said, alot more than simply the force used.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Its as different as apples and oranges, hows that?

You're seriously comparing smacking to fruit?

Sorry, couldn't help myself there!

drkpower

JimiTime wrote: »

They differ by so much more than that. Its not just about how hard you hit. Its motive, attitude etc..

That may be true; but the issue is not what the adult feels. The issue is what the child perceives and how that affects their own later attitudes. A child is unlikely to fully appreciate and perceive your motive or your attitude (although you can certainly try to convey it). There is a risk that a child (and no, not every child) is far more likely to simply associate a physical punishment with ill behaviour. And that linkage can be hard to break.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I don't think you are seeing the gravity of difference between smacking and violence.
I think you need to define what promoting violence entails? Also, you need to detatch 'smacking' from 'violence'. there really is a WORLD of difference. As I said, alot more than simply the force used.

I think you misunderstand. I am not equating 'smacking' with violence (although there is no doubt that irresponsible parents could very easily go up the gradient curve from smacking to violence pretty easily - but that is not an argument against parents who know their boundaries). The link is that a child may, over time, subconciously associate physical discipline with ill or appropriate behaviour - that may lead them, in adult life, to use physical means to deal with inappropriate behaviour of others. In adult situations, a spank is rarely appropriate and thus those physical means will be violence.

Of course, not every child will go on into adult with this mindset, and parents will no doubt seek to explain the nuances involved. But not every child will appreciate these nuances. Children learn at least as much from example as they do from what they are told to do. So, where that risk exists (even if it is a small one), the prudent action is not to use physical discipline, except perhaps in extreme situations.

Unless of course, you believe there is no reasonable chance that the association of physical discipline with ill behaviour in a child could have repurcussions in adult life (as I suggest is possible above). And if you think that, it is patently clear that you are wrong.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

The principal is NOWHERE in the same ballpark of principal. Love is the key in all of this anyway. Smacking in NO WAY promotes violence. Whether violence towards children does is nothing to do with a loving parent smacking appropriately. Its a complete red herring.

The problem with that logic is how does the child know that it was appropriate smacking?

All the child knows is that he did something to annoy or scare the parent and got hit for it.

What you expect the child to understand and (more importantly) accept is that he did something to annoy or scare the parents and got hit for it but that is only appropriate to hit someone in very particular situations for very particular reasons if and only if you are a particular person.

Which of course the child won't understand because he is a child. Explaining that he is being hit because his parents love him just ends up confusing the child (and possibly confusing his notions of what love is)

Children who observe aggressive behavior are more likely to mimic this, and what ever way you dress it up with the loving parent idea, smacking a child is aggressive behavior. Children who observe aggressive behavior are more likely to mimic this and use it in their own social interactions.

So when 8 year old Tommy steels his sisters sweets his Mom gives him a smack on the leg. Fair enough, Tommy associates this with what he did and learns that what he did was wrong.

But the next time his friend Billy steals his sweets Tommy smacks Billy in the head. Why not, this is what you do when someone does something to you, you hit them.

Zombrex

drkpower wrote: »

That may be true; but the issue is not what the adult feels. The issue is what the child perceives and how that affects their own later attitudes. A child is unlikely to fully appreciate and perceive your motive or your attitude (although you can certainly try to convey it). There is a risk that a child (and no, not every child) is far more likely to simply associate a physical punishment with ill behaviour. And that linkage can be hard to break.

Nail on the head TBH.

If children could understand and had the ability to rationally process when it was or wasn't appropriate on an adult level to hit someone else there would be no need for the smack in the first place, since they would have understanding far beyond their years.

But of course an 5 year old doesn't understand any of this. They simply absorb and mimic.

That to me is the strongest reason not to smack your children, not because you are going to physically harm them, or even mentally harm them, but because you risk teaching them that this is an appropriate thing to do to someone.

This is totally anecdotal but the kids I knew growing up who were the most rough to the other kids where the ones with the most rough parents. Whether or not the parents did this "with love" I've no idea, but I'm failing to see how if they did these kids would some how learn that what their parents were doing was actually not appropriate behavior for them to do to other kids who did stuff to them.

JimiTime

TBH, I respectfully withdraw from this conversation.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, I respectfully withdraw from this conversation.

Fair enough.

If anyone else would like to put forward actual evidence that smacking isn't mimicked in the child and doesn't lead to the child seeing hitting as an acceptable response to something, I'm all ears.

I was smacked as a child and I don't think it had any long lasting effect on my but of course that is impossible to know without rewinding my life and playing over again where I wasn't smacked.

All the scientific evidence I've seen into this area seems to suggest that child who are exposed to physical violence (I don't know why people have trouble with this word, I can think of no other word to describe a "loving" smack to a child, it is a physical action intended to cause pain) learn to mimic this, and I don't have a whole lot of faith in the ability of a parent, any parent, to understand when and how exactly the child is absorbing what is happening to them.

But like I said I'm open to any proper arguments to the contrary.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

If anyone else would like to put forward actual evidence that smacking isn't mimicked in the child and doesn't lead to the child seeing hitting as an acceptable response to something, I'm all ears.

I'm not sure that a child mimicking an adult is a major problem in and of itself. Children tend to grow up learning the reasons why behind particular behaviors and assuming there is an environment in which such education takes place there is no need to suppose childhood smacking will result in what you say it will result in.

I'm not sure children need to be taught how to smack other children anyway. It seems to come quite naturally to them.

I was smacked as a child and I don't think it had any long lasting effect on my but of course that is impossible to know without rewinding my life and playing over again where I wasn't smacked.

Do you tend to use physical violence as a way of expressing your disapproval? If not then the mimicking you supposed would occur didn't in any significant way. I was smacked as a kid too and it hasn't resulted in my mimicking this behaviour over the course of my life.

All the scientific evidence I've seen into this area seems to suggest that child who are exposed to physical violence (I don't know why people have trouble with this word, I can think of no other word to describe a "loving" smack to a child, it is a physical action intended to cause pain) learn to mimic this, and I don't have a whole lot of faith in the ability of a parent, any parent, to understand when and how exactly the child is absorbing what is happening to them.

See the above point.

If the scientific evidence doesn't deal with smacking then there's little profit in pointing to this 'evidence' as supporting your point.

You might agree that discipline can be a loving activity and if smacking forms part of that parcel of that activity then a loving smack it is I'm afraid.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Children tend to grow up learning the reasons why behind particular behaviors

They do? What do you mean the reason behind. Do you mean "I'm smacking you because you hit the dog" or "I'm smacking you and only mummy can smack you and no one else and you should never smack anyone because smacking is not an acceptable thing to do unless you are mummy"

I've yet to see evidence supporting the later.

There is a natural disconnect between teaching your children not to use physical violence against those who have upset them, and using physical violence when they do something wrong. I'm not quite sure where people are getting the idea that the 5 year old will understand this difference? Heck a lot of adults can't understand this difference.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you tend to use physical violence as a way of expressing your disapproval? If not then the mimicking you supposed would occur didn't in any significant way. I was smacked as a kid too and it hasn't resulted in my mimicking this behaviour over the course of my life.

I used to hit other children when angry, yes. As you point out this isn't exactly uncommon in children though, so I'm not drawing too much from this.

I did notice that the two kids who used to be disciplined with their fathers belt tended to quite aggressive, but again drawing from such a limited sample would be premature.

I also think it is unnecessary to go to an extreme such as someone feeling compelled to beat people all the time to argue against smacking.

The point I'm getting at is that quite a few people are saying smacking doesn't do anything to their children, yet few seem to have anything to support that with anything.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the scientific evidence doesn't deal with smacking then there's little profit in pointing to this 'evidence' as supporting your point.

Why?

Is smacking different to all other forms of physical violence? I'm talking about the physical act, not the mental state of the parent at the time.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might agree that discipline can be a loving activity and if smacking forms part of that parcel of that activity then a loving smack it is I'm afraid.

A few posters have mentioned this as if it matters significantly but I'm falling to see how the "loving" bit of a loving smack drastically alters anything.

It is an issue of the mental state of the parent smacking their child, it does nothing to alter that the child got smacked, does it?.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

They do? What do you mean the reason behind. Do you mean "I'm smacking you because you hit the dog" or "I'm smacking you and only mummy can smack you and no one else and you should never smack anyone because smacking is not an acceptable thing to do unless you are mummy"

I've yet to see evidence supporting the later.

There is a natural disconnect between teaching your children not to use physical violence against those who have upset them, and using physical violence when they do something wrong. I'm not quite sure where people are getting the idea that the 5 year old will understand this difference? Heck a lot of adults can't understand this difference.

I'm not suggesting that mammy rationalise with a 2 year old. I'm suggesting that the rationale behind all sorts of decisions mammy makes concerning the child (some of which might be deemed unpleasant at the time) become clearer as the child grows up.

I did notice that the two kids who used to be disciplined with their fathers belt tended to quite aggressive, but again drawing from such a limited sample would be premature.

Indeed. And as it would be from concluding anything about smacking through someones using of a belt. Or a hammer. Or a cattleprod.

The point I'm getting at is that quite a few people are saying smacking doesn't do anything to their children, yet few seem to have anything to support that with anything.

Fair enough.

I'm not of the opinion support need be obtained. Usually one goes looking for evidence this way or that for things suspected of being harmful. If you don't have that suspicion (as I wouldn't about smacking) then you wouldn't go looking.

Why?

Is smacking different to all other forms of physical violence? I'm talking about the physical act, not the mental state of the parent at the time.

You'll agree that you can't lump all forms of physical violence into the same pool insofar as it it's affect on the recipient goes. In order to bring science into it you need data concerning the particular form of violence being investigated.

A few posters have mentioned this as if it matters significantly but I'm falling to see how the "loving" bit of a loving smack drastically alters anything.

I was merely pointing out that your quote-bracketed 'loving' doesn't necessarily require quote marks.

It is an issue of the mental state of the parent smacking their child, it does nothing to alter that the child got smacked, does it?.

The mental state of the parent will hopefully be such as to consider this action part of a suite of actions constituting an effective disciplining policy. A disciplining policy motivated by love that is.

The recipient of a love motivated act won't necessarily see it as such at the time. Ask any kid in a dentists chair.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough.

If anyone else would like to put forward actual evidence that smacking isn't mimicked in the child and doesn't lead to the child seeing hitting as an acceptable response to something, I'm all ears.

An interesting (if not controversial) reads found here, here and here. Counter perspectives here, here and here.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that mammy rationalise with a 2 year old. I'm suggesting that the rationale behind all sorts of decisions mammy makes concerning the child (some of which might be deemed unpleasant at the time) become clearer as the child grows up.

But how does that solve the issue, the 2 year old learning from Mammy that smacking someone is an acceptable way to interact with others?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. And as it would be from concluding anything about smacking through someones using of a belt. Or a hammer. Or a cattleprod.

Again I'm not 100% sure what point you guys are trying to make with that point? What do you think is the difference between smacking someone with your hand or with a belt or rod (as the Bible describes, and which Christians tend to use), in relation to the lesson the child learns from this experience?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not of the opinion support need be obtained. Usually one goes looking for evidence this way or that for things suspected of being harmful. If you don't have that suspicion (as I wouldn't about smacking) then you wouldn't go looking.

That seems a bit head in the sand-ish.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll agree that you can't lump all forms of physical violence into the same pool insofar as it it's affect on the recipient goes. In order to bring science into it you need data concerning the particular form of violence being investigated.

I agree, but equally if a range of physical violence leads to mimickry in children I see no reason to suspect that smacking is some how immune to this.

No one has yet explained what is so special about smacking that the child has a fundamental different experience in what they learn from the parent.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The mental state of the parent will hopefully be such as to consider this action part of a suite of actions constituting an effective disciplining policy. A disciplining policy motivated by love that is.

But again how does that have any bearing on what the child learns from the parent?

If a child is smacked out of love or smacked out of annoyance the child just knows he did something wrong and got smacked. The lesson is smack people who wrong you.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But how does that solve the issue, the 2 year old learning from Mammy that smacking someone is an acceptable way to interact with others?

Under certain circumstances it is an acceptable way to interact with others. Assuming reasonable parenting, the 2 year old will grow up to be a 22 year old with a healthy regard for when and when not to smack someone.

Again I'm not 100% sure what point you guys are trying to make with that point? What do you think is the difference between smacking someone with your hand or with a belt or rod (as the Bible describes, and which Christians tend to use), in relation to the lesson the child learns from this experience?

Different intensities of pain would, I think tend towards making the point more or less apparent. Do you italicise. Or bold. Or would making the text in question ....larger do the trick

It makes sense to me, in all walks of life, not to use more force than it takes to do the job.

That seems a bit head in the sand-ish.

It's just a starting position. I really don't see the problem with smacking a child and in order for me to go looking for evidence for my position I'd really need a good reason to go looking. I stick my head in the sand with all sorts of things - as you no doubt do too. None of has the time to create work for ourselves when we don't see a need for it.

I agree, but equally if a range of physical violence leads to mimickry in children I see no reason to suspect that smacking is some how immune to this.

Ahh! I thought you were saying that smacking is shown to do a child harm

As I've pointed out above, I'm not necessarily against one child smacking another. If my 2 year old child was being 'bullied' for example, I'd have no problem with him giving the bully a smack. The 'bully' will have learnt a lesson and my child will have learnt a lesson.

This is not to say that my child couldn't smack for 'wrong' reasons. But hey! childhood is about making mistakes. I'm not supposing they remain a child forever.

No one has yet explained what is so special about smacking that the child has a fundamental different experience in what they learn from the parent.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

But again how does that have any bearing on what the child learns from the parent?

If a child is smacked out of love or smacked out of annoyance the child just knows he did something wrong and got smacked. The lesson is smack people who wrong you.

The child should learn to gauge his wrongdoing by level of intensity of discipline applied. He should also learn early on that there is an ultimate authority to whom he must bow his will (and if the right action is taken early on to ensure this authority is established then there will be no need for belts and cattleprods). These are good lessons and if a smack is necessary to ensure they are learned then a smack is a good thing.

I disagree with your unobservant child model by the way. Children are extremely perceptive and can pack away different parent-motivation in different places. The processing of that information might not occur immediately but that info will have different tags attached.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Under certain circumstances it is an acceptable way to interact with others.

I think we will have to agree to disagree there, I don't think it is accept to hit someone to teach them a lesson.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It makes sense to me, in all walks of life, not to use more force than it takes to do the job.

That isn't really the point though. If you have "done the job" the lesson is the same. I agree it is unnecessary to beat the child with a belt when a smack will get the message across, what I don't understand is what you think a smack doesn't do, that a belt does.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's just a starting position. I really don't see the problem with smacking a child and in order for me to go looking for evidence for my position I'd really need a good reason to go looking. I stick my head in the sand with all sorts of things - as you no doubt do too. None of has the time to create work for ourselves when we don't see a need for it.

But why is it your starting position?

Surely a more reasonable starting position would be that you don't know whether smacking a child sets a bad example for them or not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ahh! I thought you were saying that smacking is shown to do a child harm

No, I'm saying that smacking a child is shown to cause the child to mimic the behavior.

I don't think the odd smack if going to mentally scare the child, but there seems a lot of evidence that it does set a pretty poor example for them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I've pointed out above, I'm not necessarily against one child smacking another. If my 2 year old child was being 'bullied' for example, I'd have no problem with him giving the bully a smack. The 'bully' will have learnt a lesson and my child will have learnt a lesson.

What if your child is the bully? Most bullies start off themselves being bullied, often at home.

This is sort of the point, if you teach your child that physical hitting is an acceptable way to deal with feeling wronged the child is way to young to rationally process this into what you would call reasonable or acceptable adult behavior.

So the child does something wrong and gets hit for it by the parent. Angry at this but unable to take it out on the parent the child smacks a younger child who looks at him wrong in school. That child hits him back. The bully is now even more upset and angry.

I'm not saying that you child smacking a bully is not an acceptable response. But there is no need for the parent to do this and as such all it does is create an angry child.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The child should learn to gauge his wrongdoing by level of intensity of discipline applied.

Yeah but he won't though, will he.

The rather ironic thing through all this is that you give children such high credit at understanding complex adult themes yet think it is necessary to smack them to get the point across.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I think we will have to agree to disagree there, I don't think it is accept to hit someone to teach them a lesson.

Teaching them a lesson might not be the intent. Deterrance? Punishment? Defence?

That isn't really the point though. If you have "done the job" the lesson is the same. I agree it is unnecessary to beat the child with a belt when a smack will get the message across, what I don't understand is what you think a smack doesn't do, that a belt does.

What does pulling out fingers nails do in interrogation that a smack wouldn't do. C'mon Wicknight.

But why is it your starting position?

Surely a more reasonable starting position would be that you don't know whether smacking a child sets a bad example for them or not.

I think letting a child conclude at too early an age that it can insist on it's will being done is bad for a child and bad for it's parents. Like I say, when the child is too young to be rationalised with + a method of communication is required then smacking seems to fit the bill fine.

I don't think the odd smack if going to mentally scare the child, but there seems a lot of evidence that it does set a pretty poor example for them.

What kind of evidence is there? Note that the research would have to be quiet sensitive to the kind/application of the smacking in order to comment usefully.

I somehow doubt this level of sensitivity exists in research into smacking - so difficult would it be to establish negative causalities

What if your child is the bully? Most bullies start off themselves being bullied, often at home.

Then I'm fine with someone giving him a smack in the case that he's the bully. It might help highlight that there's a problem there that needs addressing in him.

This is sort of the point, if you teach your child that physical hitting is an acceptable way to deal with feeling wronged the child is way to young to rationally process this into what you would call reasonable or acceptable adult behavior.

So the child does something wrong and gets hit for it by the parent. Angry at this but unable to take it out on the parent the child smacks a younger child who looks at him wrong in school. That child hits him back. The bully is now even more upset and angry.

I'm not saying that you child smacking a bully is not an acceptable response. But there is no need for the parent to do this and as such all it does is create an angry child.

This whole point seems to fly in the face of our experiences. Smacking (indeed corporal punishment at school) was prevelent when I was growing up yet we didn't go around hitting other people in return. Nobody I know growing up was particularily into hitting other peoplem - indeed, we shyed away from it in the main.

Yeah but he won't though, will he.

Why not? Wrong behaviour x means a stern NO! Wrong behaviour y means a smack. Why wouldn't he learn to differentiate?

The rather ironic thing through all this is that you give children such high credit at understanding complex adult themes yet think it is necessary to smack them to get the point across.

I didn't give them the credit you say I give them

I said they could discern differences in an annoyed parent and not-anooyed parent. Annoyance+smack vs. non-annoyance + smack.

Discernibly different for a child.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Teaching them a lesson might not be the intent. Deterrance? Punishment? Defence?

Deterrence and punishment are teaching a lesson.

As for defense, when has an adult ever needed to smack a toddler in defense?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What does pulling out fingers nails do in interrogation that a smack wouldn't do. C'mon Wicknight.

Physical and emotionally scare the individual. But again that wasn't my point.

If you have hurt them enough to get the job done as you say you have hurt them enough to imprint the idea that hurting people is an acceptable response to being wronged by them.

Anything else is just extra pain and suffering.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think letting a child conclude at too early an age that it can insist on it's will being done is bad for a child and bad for it's parents.

I agree, but smacking your children and letting them run riot are obviously not the only options available.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like I say, when the child is too young to be rationalised with + a method of communication is required then smacking seems to fit the bill fine.

That is my point though. If the child is too young to be rationalized with then he is too young to understand the fine points of when it is or isn't acceptable to hit people.

This is the flaw in the argument that you can smack kids to teach them but it won't have any lasting effect because they will understand what exactly they are being taught.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What kind of evidence is there?

That isn't a reason to jump into the its does nothing bad camp, though is it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then I'm fine with someone giving him a smack in the case that he's the bully. It might help highlight that there's a problem there that needs addressing in him.

It does, and how do you deal with that problem by hitting him?

antiskeptic wrote: »

This whole point seems to fly in the face of our experiences. Smacking (indeed corporal punishment at school) was prevelent when I was growing up yet we didn't go around hitting other people in return.

You didn't?

All the evidence I've seen (and I've yet to read Jakkass' links) points to violence against children producing kids that see violence as an acceptable method of interaction.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why not? Wrong behaviour x means a stern NO! Wrong behaviour y means a smack. Why wouldn't he learn to differentiate?

Because the child doesn't understand what is actually happening, almost by definition, if he did he wouldn't need to be smacked in the first place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I said they could discern differences in an annoyed parent and not-anooyed parent. Annoyance+smack vs. non-annoyance + smack.

I don't know what you mean here. Do you mean a parent who hits their child for no reason vs one who hits their child for dicipling.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Deterrence and punishment are teaching a lesson.

Really? why does recidivism exist then?

As for defense, when has an adult ever needed to smack a toddler in defense?

You stated "someone" not a child.

If you have hurt them enough to get the job done as you say you have hurt them enough to imprint the idea that hurting people is an acceptable response to being wronged by them.

In some cases it is. In fact in some cases killing someone might be accepted as necessary or justified.

I agree, but smacking your children and letting them run riot are obviously not the only options available.

Physical force on children is sometimes necessary and usually more immediate and possibly more effective.

That is my point though. If the child is too young to be rationalized with then he is too young to understand the fine points of when it is or isn't acceptable to hit people.

this basically "if you can't reason with a person then why use physical force against them?" There are plenty of examples where you get nowhere by reasoning and get instant results from physical force or violence. Let us say you are the KKK member who won't let black people on the half empty last bus out of town before the tsunami arrives and I am the black guy with the gun pointing at your head. Even in that case i might not even have to use physical force but just threaten it. Mind you a threat is of no use if the person does not understand the consequences of the threat being carried out.

This is the flaw in the argument that you can smack kids to teach them but it won't have any lasting effect because they will understand what exactly they are being taught.

Pavlov would disagree. Positive re-enforcement may be ethical but negative reinforcement can be shown to actually work.

All the evidence I've seen (and I've yet to read Jakkass' links) points to violence against children producing kids that see violence as an acceptable method of interaction.

True. In the case of children who are beaten. Children who are smacked however or are pulled by the hair or ear don't tend to become child soldiers or axe murderers.

Because the child doesn't understand what is actually happening, almost by definition, if he did he wouldn't need to be smacked in the first place.

Children are actually capable of reasoning and understanding. Back to the KKK guy on the bus. He understands what is happening . He still needs to have a gun put to his head if the black guy wants to get on the bus.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Deterrence and punishment are teaching a lesson.

In a figure of speech kind of way when it comes to my deterring/punishing others perhaps. In taking action to deter or punish others I mightn't care whether the recipient is learning anything or not from it. But you seem to have switched tracks at some point WN. Let me remind you from whence the point we are now discussing, came:

Wicknight earlier.. wrote:

But how does that solve the issue, the 2 year old learning from Mammy that smacking someone is an acceptable way to interact with others?

..what I said subsequently deals with this - a two years old learning about dealings with others. My comments on deterence, punishment and defence wasn't referring to..

As for defense, when has an adult ever needed to smack a toddler in defense?

..the parent/child relationship. It was referring to dealings with others.

Physical and emotionally scare the individual. But again that wasn't my point.

It seemed to be: you seem intent on seeing all physical violence as resulting in the same thing. When this patently isn't so. And so we can agree that a punch in the face would achieve something that a smack wouldn't be expected to.

If you have hurt them enough to get the job done as you say you have hurt them enough to imprint the idea that hurting people is an acceptable response to being wronged by them.

It should be now clear that I don't exclude hurting other people as an acceptable response to being wronged. I'm not supposing the child left in isolation and would figure that the totality of upbringing would enable the child to become an adult - equipped with a healthy sense of when and how much hurting is to be inflicted on others in response to wrongdoing.

Anything else is just extra pain and suffering.

Agreed.

I agree, but smacking your children and letting them run riot are obviously not the only options available.

I'm not suggesting they are.

I'm fond of DIY and one thing I've gotten used to is making a limited amount of tools stretch to encompass all the jobs that can be encountered around the house. Every now and then I take the plunge and invest in another tool - one that fits jobs which were previously tackled with compromise tools. There's nothing like the right tool for the job.

Smacking is like that. Sure, there are other tools I can use to ensure the job, ie: my will, be done. But in the case that they are compromise tools, they'll never get the job done in quite the same way. Smacking is but a tool in a toolbox. To be employed when the job demands it.

That is my point though. If the child is too young to be rationalized with then he is too young to understand the fine points of when it is or isn't acceptable to hit people.

This is the flaw in the argument that you can smack kids to teach them but it won't have any lasting effect because they will understand what exactly they are being taught.

It needn't have a lasting affect because the child is subject to ongoing teaching and example. The smacking doesn't occur in isolation like I say.

Are we agreed that you don't have to smack children in order that they'll smack others under certain circumstances? That children smack others of their own accord? If so, then you'll agree that they already find it acceptable to hit other children.

That isn't a reason to jump into the its does nothing bad camp, though is it?

I'm in it by default. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. That exterior force would be something which causes me to question the wisdom behind smacking. I've not seen that yet.

It does, and how do you deal with that problem by hitting him?

I'm not saying I'd deal with that problem by smacking.

All the evidence I've seen (and I've yet to read Jakkass' links) points to violence against children producing kids that see violence as an acceptable method of interaction.

I'll await the evidence on smacking. I'm not inclined to lump everything into one big pile called violence.

Because the child doesn't understand what is actually happening, almost by definition, if he did he wouldn't need to be smacked in the first place.

Er.. it's a painful consequence of a behaviour that creates the 'understanding'. Behavour x attracts negative consequence X (NO! BOLD!!). Behaviour y attracts negative consequence Y (Smack!). The child can differentiate between the two degrees of negative.

I say 'understanding' because the child isn't really at the point of comprehending morality. At this point it's simply consequences (in this case negative) attaching to behaviour, that is being taught. There is no need for the child to understand it at this point.

I don't know what you mean here. Do you mean a parent who hits their child for no reason vs one who hits their child for dicipling.

Assuming healthy use of smacking (if that doesn't ..er.. smack of begging the question-ism) the child will be connecting particular behaviours of his with the suite of perceived-as-negative responses from mammy and daddy. Negative response from them will be ringfenced into zone concerning his behavior.

A smack delivered outside that zone (because the parent is annoyed reasons not having to do with the childs behavior) will be perceived differently. Not understood probably, but percieved differently.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

the parent/child relationship. It was referring to dealings with others.

Ok. Your central premise seems to be that sometimes it is ok for one child to smack another child who has wronged him, so him learning that smacking is an acceptable form of interaction from his parents no bad thing.

I'm afraid with such little common ground here perhaps further back and forth on that particular issue is possibly pointless.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seemed to be: you seem intent on seeing all physical violence as resulting in the same thing. When this patently isn't so.

Not at all. What was being suggested is that there is "all physical violence" over here with all the bad things associated with it, and then there is smacking which is done lovingly and is completely different.

I was rejecting that premise, not implying that all physical violence is the same. My point is that smacking is not different enough to have an significant effect on what we know about children and mimicry of violent behavior.

Smacking is not as bad as ripping someones toenails out, but it is silly to pretend it is not in itself a form of violence. The way some of the posters here talk about it it is as if the parent was blowing lightly on the child's leg.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It should be now clear that I don't exclude hurting other people as an acceptable response to being wronged.

It is, and as I said above we have lost all common ground I think to debate this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It needn't have a lasting affect because the child is subject to ongoing teaching and example. The smacking doesn't occur in isolation like I say.

You have presented no evidence that this is the case, and evidence I've seen suggests otherwise.

I'm open to being corrected, but at the moment the fact that this is simply your "default" position means very little to me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are we agreed that you don't have to smack children in order that they'll smack others under certain circumstances? That children smack others of their own accord? If so, then you'll agree that they already find it acceptable to hit other children.

That wasn't really my point. Children find it acceptable to steal and fight and lie etc

The role of parents should be to teach through the setting of good examples, not confirm for the child that yes actually it is ok to smack someone if you feel you have good reason to.

I appreciate you disagree with that lesson, but the fact that children are naturally aggressive to each other really has little to do with my argument. It is in fact a pretty good reason not smack your children, unless of course you do want to teach them that hitting others is ok.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm in it by default. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. That exterior force would be something which causes me to question the wisdom behind smacking. I've not seen that yet.

But that doesn't make sense. How can your default position be on one side of the argument? Surely you have to be pushed from a natural position of "I don't know" over to that argument first, you don't start off there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll await the evidence on smacking. I'm not inclined to lump everything into one big pile called violence.

Fair enough but again you seem to have already picked your side, so the claims of waiting to see the evidence seem to ring a bit hollow.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. it's a painful consequence of a behaviour that creates the 'understanding'. Behavour x attracts negative consequence X (NO! BOLD!!). Behaviour y attracts negative consequence Y (Smack!). The child can differentiate between the two degrees of negative.

That wasn't really my point. A child often can't differentiate between the behavior he was doing that triggered the consequences.

He was smacked but he doesn't understand why he was smacked. He knows he did something wrong but doesn't understand what that was or why is wrong.

Smacking is a form of unconscious reinforcement. Which is fine, I'm sure it works. The child associates things like standing in the road with pain, though they don't understand why. But it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does, with a flash of realization and understanding of the point the adult was making to the child

As such the idea that the child learns the finner points of when smacking is or isn't acceptable in his own interactions rings hollow.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I say 'understanding' because the child isn't really at the point of comprehending morality. At this point it's simply consequences (in this case negative) attaching to behaviour, that is being taught. There is no need for the child to understand it at this point.

Agreed. But there is if, as you claim, this is shaping his understanding of how he interacts with others with relation to smacking.

Lets be clear, I'm under no illusions that smacking doesn't work. The child subconsciously associates what they were doing (often in a fuzzy but good enough) fashion with pain and punishment.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming healthy use of smacking (if that doesn't ..er.. smack of begging the question-ism) the child will be connecting particular behaviours of his with the suite of perceived-as-negative responses from mammy and daddy. Negative response from them will be ringfenced into zone concerning his behavior.

A smack delivered outside that zone (because the parent is annoyed reasons not having to do with the childs behavior) will be perceived differently. Not understood probably, but percieved differently.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. You cannot expect the child to know that they are being smacked for something they didn't do. The process works exactly the same, they child associates what they were doing with the smack. If the child was doing something that was actually nothing to do with the smack they will have no idea this is the case. How could they?

Joey the lips

This thread has actually spawned its brother in a neighbouring thread it seems love thy neighbour or maybe loath thy neighbour applies.

Anyway. I am not the perfect dad, I looose the head some times. I hit out sometimes. I am not going to describe in what way as i disagree with these discussions

However I think hitting a child is wrong. Nothing to do with religion, god, belief or non belief.


I love my child. I adore my child. If i fail to control my anger I am failing to teach my child. All we have is material. Nothing is greater than the love for our children and my children will learn from my love to love there own and they will know that if they fail they are failing themselves and only themselves.

Having said that... I am not perfect but I try.

Fanny Cradock

I'm not sure that anyone here who approves of smacking is saying they would do it out of anger.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok. Your central premise seems to be that sometimes it is ok for one child to smack another child who has wronged him, so him learning that smacking is an acceptable form of interaction from his parents no bad thing.

You seem hell-bent on running to the extremes of a point.

I've said its acceptable to inflict pain on others as a way of dealing with their wrongdoing. That's not a carte blanche for thumping all and sundry. I've also said, and you've accepted, that children will hit children irrespective of whether they are smacked at home or not. I've also said that smacking doesn't occur in isolation and that the child is undergoing a process of development that will teach him where and when inflicting pain on others in response to wrongdoing might find a healthy level.

It's okay that children hit other children without cause - it's part of being a child. It's okay that children hit other children with cause. It's part of being a child. If smacking results in some more hitting of other children, with or without cause then that's okay too - it's part of being a child.

A child doesn't stay a child. You seem to be ignoring that.

Not at all. What was being suggested is that there is "all physical violence" over here with all the bad things associated with it, and then there is smacking which is done lovingly and is completely different.

I was rejecting that premise, not implying that all physical violence is the same. My point is that smacking is not different enough to have an significant effect on what we know about children and mimicry of violent behavior.

Smacking is not as bad as ripping someones toenails out, but it is silly to pretend it is not in itself a form of violence. The way some of the posters here talk about it it is as if the parent was blowing lightly on the child's leg.

I'm rejection your premise on the grounds of simplistic reasoning. I know enough about the scientific approach to know that you can't extract such sweeping generalisations as you do here. You premise involves an assumption which is supported only by a sematic "the physical violence (its nature, motivation, extent.. thereof) dealt with in the studies indicates negative outcomes. Smacking is physical and in involves violence > the studies outcome covers smacking.

With all due respect Wicknight, not in a million years.

It is, and as I said above we have lost all common ground I think to debate this.

It probably stems from your view that punishment is inappropriate. Deterrance okay. Security okay. Rehabiliation okay. Punishment? Not okay.

As you say: no common ground on this essential

You have presented no evidence that this is the case, and evidence I've seen suggests otherwise.

You have presented no evidence. You've extrapolated in a fashion unrecognisable as scientific. The evidence which see me hold the default position I hold is the evidence of my own experience and the experience of those around me whose backgrounds I know. Smacked as children yet not violent (other than sharing perhaps, my sense that infliction of physical pain in certain circumstances is acceptable)

The role of parents should be to teach through the setting of good examples, not confirm for the child that yes actually it is ok to smack someone if you feel you have good reason to.

You would appreciate that the direction of the lesson during the childs upbringing will tend towards severely curtailing what constitutes 'good reason' At which point we separate due to uncommon ground. The good example set will be that which illuminates the curtailment.

But that doesn't make sense. How can your default position be on one side of the argument? Surely you have to be pushed from a natural position of "I don't know" over to that argument first, you don't start off there.

My default arises from rationalisation:

It didn't do me harm nor did it do harm to those I know. I have no rational problem with inflicting pain on others in certain circumstances so it's not the result of my being smacked that I hold this position.

I consider it vital that a parent maintain a position of ultimate authority at this vital point in a childs development. If that is ingrained then, problems down the tracks can be avoided. Given that a child cannot be reasoned with, communication methods which the child can understand must be used. Smacking is one of these should it be that other communication methods aren't getting the message across.

Countering that I have .. what precisely? Your application of the science surrounding physical violence is almost Kent Hovind-like in it's contortionism - whilst missing entertainment value in it's delivery

That wasn't really my point. A child often can't differentiate between the behavior he was doing that triggered the consequences.

If the child often can't differentiate between the behaviour he was doing that triggered the consequences then no consequences of any type should be delivered: not smacking, not NO BOLD, not go to your room, not nothing...

We're assuming, for the sake of argument, that the child can make a connection between a behaviour and the consequences delivered

He was smacked but he doesn't understand why he was smacked. He knows he did something wrong but doesn't understand what that was or why is wrong.

Smacking is a form of unconscious reinforcement. Which is fine, I'm sure it works. The child associates things like standing in the road with pain, though they don't understand why.

Here, we're back to the child being able to connect a particular behaviour to a particular consequence. If the child was able to understand the why's and wherefore's then it's why&wherefore strategy that can be employed. We're not dealing with that case however, we're dealing with the case where the child cannot be rationalised with, or not rationalised with significantly enough in order that the message come across. Running out onto the road is a good case in point.


In fact, danger areas represent a good case for application of smacking. A smack on the hand that reaches up to the hotplate a few times and the message will helpfully get across. Sometimes you haven't the luxury of waiting until the rational argument sinks in.

But it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does, with a flash of realization and understanding of the point the adult was making to the child

As such the idea that the child learns the finner points of when smacking is or isn't acceptable in his own interactions rings hollow.

Hopefully you'll see that understanding isn't the aim. Obedience/deterrance is.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. You cannot expect the child to know that they are being smacked for something they didn't do. The process works exactly the same, they child associates what they were doing with the smack. If the child was doing something that was actually nothing to do with the smack they will have no idea this is the case. How could they?

In the same way they come to differntiate between all the other non-reasoning reinforcement methods that are applied both rationally and out of annoyance, I suppose. The child might find that his parents never relent on the issue of his running out onto the road. But do (very much in the main) on the matter of his using daddies ipod in a submarine game.


Remember that smacking is but one of these measures. If it can't work effectively - despite being deployed with occasional inconsistancy, then none of them can work

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've said its acceptable to inflict pain on others as a way of dealing with their wrongdoing. That's not a carte blanche for thumping all and sundry.

If you say so. So far you aren't really putting forward a distinction other than just that the toddler will some how know or learn when it is acceptable and when it isn't.

Which is a bit odd considering we are debating when it is acceptable and when it is (ie we can't even agree on that, how is a toddler supposed to know?)

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's okay that children hit other children without cause - it's part of being a child. It's okay that children hit other children with cause. It's part of being a child.

Like I said I don't agree with that at all. I agree they will do it, but not that it is ok, nor that the parent should tell them it is ok.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Smacking is physical and in involves violence > the studies outcome covers smacking.

Pretty much. I'm not sure how that is simplistic reasoning, unless you are arguing that smacking isn't physical violence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It probably stems from your view that punishment is inappropriate.

No, it stems from my view that kids smacking other kids is not good and shouldn't be encouraged by the parents.

I've no problem with parents discipling or punishing their children, but I think they should do it in a way that doesn't imprint bad habits to the child. Of course you have to agree with me what is or isn't a bad habit, which seems to be where we are losing common ground.

Taking another example, I don't think a parent should laugh at their child and call them names (something you sometimes see on those Nanny 911 programs) when the parent is punishing the child.

I don't think a parent should humiliate their child in front of other children in order to punish them.

I'm not saying you do, I'm simply pointing out that it is not punishment that I have a problem with but punishment that is likely to imprint on the child behavior I wouldn't want to the child to mimic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The evidence which see me hold the default position I hold is the evidence of my own experience and the experience of those around me whose backgrounds I know.

Ok, but why are you pretending this is the default position? It isn't, it is a position you entered into.

It seems a bit odd to criticize my evidence as "unscientific" when yours is purely anecdotal.

If my evidence fails the standards to convince you why do you accept your evidence?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would appreciate that the direction of the lesson during the childs upbringing will tend towards severely curtailing what constitutes 'good reason'

Not at all. I see no reason why that would be the case, nor have you presented any. You seem to just think the child will learn this by osmosis

antiskeptic wrote: »

It didn't do me harm nor did it do harm to those I know.

You appreciate that this is less scientific than the evidence I presented to you, I hope?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Countering that I have .. what precisely? Your application of the science surrounding physical violence is almost Kent Hovind-like in it's contortionism - whilst missing entertainment value in it's delivery

Please. Smacking is a form of violent behavior and studies have shown that children mimic violent behavior.

You are correct in calling for specific studies to deal with specifically smacking if we want to be sure this applies directly to smacking.

But the idea that it is some how utterly unscientific nonsense is a distortion, particular when you are happy to accept utterly unscientific anecdotal evidence.

You seem more interested in supporting your own preconceived position. I used to believe smacking was fine, since I was smacked and I consider myself fine, but studies such as these convinced me otherwise.

I suppose though I didn't have the Bible in the mix.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the child often can't differentiate between the behaviour he was doing that triggered the consequences then no consequences of any type should be delivered: not smacking, not NO BOLD, not go to your room, not nothing...

Yes they can because the child doesn't have to understand what triggered the consequences in order for the punishment to be effective.

If I smack a child because he is standing on the road he doesn't have to understand why. The event imprints unconsciously that the environment (the road) is bad.

The child will learn to associate what they were doing with bad things, even though they won't understand it. That is basically what is child education. The next time he doesn't stand in the road, not because he understands about speeding cars, but because it is associated with bad things

What he doesn't know is I'm in danger of being hit by a car at this moment and this is life threatening so my mother was justified in smacking me and if I ever want to smack someone it is only in the case where they are doing something life threatening. Which seems to be what you think they get from the experience.

I can see no way, nor have you presented a way, that the child will learn a lesson on when to smack from this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're assuming, for the sake of argument, that the child can make a connection between a behaviour and the consequences delivered

No we aren't.

If you have evidence to present to the contrary I'm happy to look at it but from what I understand about child behavior that seems an unfounded assumption.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In fact, danger areas represent a good case for application of smacking. A smack on the hand that reaches up to the hotplate a few times and the message will helpfully get across. Sometimes you haven't the luxury of waiting until the rational argument sinks in.

I'm not disagree with any of that.

What I'm disagreeing with is that while you are smacking the child for reaching towards the hot plate they are learning a valuable lesson about when it is appropriate to smack someone.

The child doesn't understand what will happen to him if he touches the hot plate. He probably doesn't even understand that it is the hot plate he shouldn't touch.

The idea then that he will learn when it is acceptable to smack someone (ie if they are about to case serious harm to themselves) seems unsupported.

Again I'm not disagreeing with the idea that smacking works, I'm disagreeing with your idea that smacking itself teaches the child when it is or isn't acceptable to smack people.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully you'll see that understanding isn't the aim. Obedience/deterrance is.

Of course. But the argument is being put forward that the bad aspects of smacking (mimicry) don't apply because the child will learn along with not doing the thing they are being smacked for, the set of justifications for smacking someone.

They will learn to only smack people in the same circumstances they were smacked, ie if the person is going to harm themselves, or doing something dangerous.

That seems to be an unsupported assertion and rather counter intuitive.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the same way they come to differntiate between all the other non-reasoning reinforcement methods that are applied both rationally and out of annoyance, I suppose.

Who says the child does learn this?

If the child is being constantly smacked for talking during the football they will learn that talking during the football is wrong. They don't learn that their dad is being rather unreasonable for smacking them during the football.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember that smacking is but one of these measures. If it can't work effectively - despite being deployed with occasional inconsistancy, then none of them can work

Smacking does work, if by work you mean teach the child what is or isn't acceptable behavior according to the parents

Your child won't run out into the road, nor will he talk during the football, if you smack him when he does.

What it doesn't do is imprint the lessons you are claiming it does which nullify the bad effects of such behavior.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure that anyone here who approves of smacking is saying they would do it out of anger.

Perhaps not, but what does seem to be put forward is that the child will know the difference.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

If you say so. So far you aren't really putting forward a distinction other than just that the toddler will some how know or learn when it is acceptable and when it isn't.

Which is a bit odd considering we are debating when it is acceptable and when it is (ie we can't even agree on that, how is a toddler supposed to know?)

Given that there is no agreed measure of acceptability (other than the law of the land), let's agree that if he comes to find it acceptable in the same way and degree that I do then I'll consider that acceptable upbringing. Given that he'd be under my influence during his life, it's reasonably to suppose, all things considered, that that's what will occur.

Like I said I don't agree with that at all. I agree they will do it, but not that it is ok, nor that the parent should tell them it is ok.

Fair enough. You'd cap all such actions. I'd cap most.


If I saw a young kid on the street bullying mine and mine gave him a smack back I'd say to myself "good for you". In their simple world the ways of inter-communication are limited. So let them communicate.

Pretty much. I'm not sure how that is simplistic reasoning, unless you are arguing that smacking isn't physical violence.

It's simplistic to render your argument down to semantics. There are all shades of physical violence and a raft of motivations and conditions under which such violence occurs. Unless all shades of physical violence are shown to result in what you say they all result in, then all don't necessarily result in what you're suggesting.

Your extrapolating most simplistically and this isn't in the least scientific.

I've no problem with parents discipling or punishing their children, but I think they should do it in a way that doesn't imprint bad habits to the child. Of course you have to agree with me what is or isn't a bad habit, which seems to be where we are losing common ground.

Indeed. Although you again seem to draw extremes: that because I see a place for smacking means I'd also encourage my children to go around slapping others.

Again I think you appear to pick this up in isolation - that nothing else is going to be done to influence the direction of the child. On the "other side" an anti-smacker agreed that in the face of her child running out towards the road that "yes - I would wrench him violently from danger".

Which by your logic means that child will now go around wrenching other kids violently about the place.

It doesn't stack up, this singular view of yours.

Taking another example, I don't think a parent should laugh at their child and call them names (something you sometimes see on those Nanny 911 programs) when the parent is punishing the child.

I don't think a parent should humiliate their child in front of other children in order to punish them.

You watch such programmes? I hope your kids are in bed when you do



Punishment wouldn't be the motive in smacking in the case we have been dealing with to date. We're supposing an age before the age of reasonable reason when ways of reasoned communication are limited, yet a message need be delivered. Once the age of reasonableness is reached, the language of reason will increase. Which is not to say a smack need be excluded at that older age (although I'd see it as less applicable, just as I see the belt at a yet older age as a battle already lost)

I'm not saying you do, I'm simply pointing out that it is not punishment that I have a problem with but punishment that is likely to imprint on the child behavior I wouldn't want to the child to mimic.

An aside: didn't you have a problem with punishment for wrongdoing in a recent discussion to do with criminal justice: deterrance ok, security ok, rehab ok .. punishment not ok?

My response here is a repeat of things already stated: smacking occurs in isolation so I am not concerned that the child is going to progress on to be a prizefighter in the kindergaarten. Perhaps we should drop this element of discussion?

Ok, but why are you pretending this is the default position? It isn't, it is a position you entered into.

It seems a bit odd to criticize my evidence as "unscientific" when yours is purely anecdotal.

If my evidence fails the standards to convince you why do you accept your evidence?

Because you offer no evidence - other than the inappropriately extrapolated ... and I have intimate access to some. It's a default position because it's the one I find I occupy from the get-go on considering the issue.

Remember that "my anecdotal" is what would go to form the substance of scientific evaluation: do the smacked turn into inappropriately physical people. Not in my realm they don't.

You would appreciate that the direction of the lesson during the childs upbringing will tend towards severely curtailing what constitutes 'good reason'

Not at all. I see no reason why that would be the case, nor have you presented any. You seem to just think the child will learn this by osmosis

By "during the childs upbringing" I don't mean the days in which he was smacked. I mean the ongoing upbringing being that which teaches him when and why physical violence (to use your language) might be appropriate.

You appreciate that this is less scientific than the evidence I presented to you, I hope?[/qutoe]

I haven't seen any evidence to do with smacking. And I reject the crude extrapolation which is being applied to (unseen references to) evidence.

Please. Smacking is a form of violent behavior and studies have shown that children mimic violent behavior.

Kids mimic - period. And they hit other kids. And they will be brought up to learn how to live life in a way considered appropriate by the parent. Generally that means they won't go around hitting other kids so it seems that both the natural tendency to hit others and the mimicry will be teased out in the wash

Blind guess: your scienctific won't be dealing with this. Your evidence will be dealing with ongoingly violent, abusive households

You are correct in calling for specific studies to deal with specifically smacking if we want to be sure this applies directly to smacking.

But the idea that it is some how utterly unscientific nonsense is a distortion, particular when you are happy to accept utterly unscientific anecdotal evidence.

You seem more interested in supporting your own preconceived position. I used to believe smacking was fine, since I was smacked and I consider myself fine, but studies such as these convinced me otherwise.

I suppose though I didn't have the Bible in the mix.

Which studies? Those dealing with violent, abusive households the results of which were then extrapolated to cover that which no scientist would dare to add his name to?

Yes they can because the child doesn't have to understand what triggered the consequences in order for the punishment to be effective.

If I smack a child because he is standing on the road he doesn't have to understand why. The event imprints unconsciously that the environment (the road) is bad.

The child will learn to associate what they were doing with bad things, even though they won't understand it. That is basically what is child education. The next time he doesn't stand in the road, not because he understands about speeding cars, but because it is associated with bad things

Agreed. That is the goal behind the smack: negative association without any understanding the reason behind it.

The same point applies to wilfulness: where the child associates his wilfulness with something negative. A smack in the case we are looking at.

What he doesn't know is I'm in danger of being hit by a car at this moment and this is life threatening so my mother was justified in smacking me and if I ever want to smack someone it is only in the case where they are doing something life threatening. Which seems to be what you think they get from the experience.

I can see no way, nor have you presented a way, that the child will learn a lesson on when to smack from this.

I in no way suggested all that.

What I suggest is that the sum total of ongoing upbringing is going to see the child move out of the stage where it hits other kids whether through natural tendency or through mimickry.

It is as you say just above: negative consequences teach "such and such really not liked by mammy and daddy."

No we aren't.

If you have evidence to present to the contrary I'm happy to look at it but from what I understand about child behavior that seems an unfounded assumption.

If the child cannot connect his behaviour (running out onto the road / wilfulness) with the negative consequence delivered then no negative consequence should be delivered. We'd be taking crossed purposes.

Like, there's no point in smacking a baby (unless it's his arse at birth ) And so we must assume our conversation deals with children who can connect behaviour to negative consequence.

What I'm disagreeing with is that while you are smacking the child for reaching towards the hot plate they are learning a valuable lesson about when it is appropriate to smack someone.

The child doesn't understand what will happen to him if he touches the hot plate. He probably doesn't even understand that it is the hot plate he shouldn't touch.

The idea then that he will learn when it is acceptable to smack someone (ie if they are about to case serious harm to themselves) seems unsupported.

Again I'm not disagreeing with the idea that smacking works, I'm disagreeing with your idea that smacking itself teaches the child when it is or isn't acceptable to smack people.

Er.. I've not suggested my smacking a child teaches the child anything about the acceptability of smacking others (other than encouraging, you say, mimicry). I'm suggested general upbringing will teach a child about the acceptably and otherwise of smacking other people.

So, Wicknight. You've a child below the age of reasonable reasoning. And you've a string of dangers: the road, electricity, hotplates. You've a method open to you that will bring quick resolution to the issue and reduce the risk to your child from these dangers. Indeed, you can apply Pavlovian principles: combining a smart smack with a stern "No! Danger!" a few times - after which point the requirement for a danger-smack diminishes to nought.

Or you've the increased risk of danger to your child brought about by less effective methods of deflecting the child from danger.

Could you elaborate on how you resolve this dilemma?

Of course. But the argument is being put forward that the bad aspects of smacking (mimicry) don't apply because the child will learn along with not doing the thing they are being smacked for, the set of justifications for smacking someone.

They will learn to only smack people in the same circumstances they were smacked, ie if the person is going to harm themselves, or doing something dangerous.

That seems to be an unsupported assertion and rather counter intuitive.

Well, I turned out okay. And you turned out okay (in that you wouldn't smack anyone for anything). In the light of no scientific evidence that's all we have. It's hardly counter intuitive when both smackees in this dicussion were raised to have the view we now have.

Who says the child does learn this?

If the child is being constantly smacked for talking during the football they will learn that talking during the football is wrong. They don't learn that their dad is being rather unreasonable for smacking them during the football.

I'm assuming the annoyance-motivated disciplining involves a certain randomness or willy nillyedness. It's the randomness of annoyance motivated discipline that differentiates it from structural discipline.

If the annoyance is structural and patterned then the discipline is also structural: "don't talk during the match" becomes a structural discipline

Smacking does work, if by work you mean teach the child what is or isn't acceptable behavior according to the parents

Your child won't run out into the road, nor will he talk during the football, if you smack him when he does.

What it doesn't do is imprint the lessons you are claiming it does which nullify the bad effects of such behavior.

Smacking is but one of a suite of activities aimed at teaching the child what is or isn't acceptable behaviour according to the parents. I'd prefer he mimic me and hit another child than have no reason to mimic me and run out onto the road.

I'm not claiming smacking imprints any other lessons than those: this is what my parents want. This is what I'll do. Ongoing life - and the full gamut of upbringing will teach other lessons regarding the place smacking once held in his life.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's simplistic to render your argument down to semantics.

I know, but you seem to be doing that. You are saying that while a range of violence actions are mimicked in children because the studies did not assess the specific action of smacking we can drawn absolutely nothing from these.

That to me seems unnecessarily pedantic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. Although you again seem to draw extremes: that because I see a place for smacking means I'd also encourage my children to go around slapping others.

That isn't an extreme, that is the reality. Children learn from their parents. If you smack your child you are demonstrating what is acceptable behavior to them.

You aren't demonstrate that it is acceptable behavior only in specific circumstances, which is what you seem to assume the child will pick up on.

You used bullying as an example. But what part of you smacking your child because they are about to touch the stove teaches your child to smack a bully but not smack his friend who just stole his ice cream.

Simply because you draw a distinction is it is some what naive to assume this distinction some how works its way to the child.

antiskeptic wrote: »

"yes - I would wrench him violently form danger".

Which by your logic means that child will now go around wrenching other kids violently about the place.

Yes. That isn't an ideological position, it is a biological reality.

That isn't an argument not to wrench a child out of danger (something that can be quite distressing for the child). But simply because you have to do this doesn't mean the child doesn't imprint anything from it happening.

For example if you are stuck in a sinking car you may need to drag your child under water and out onto the river bank. The child may very well have a subconscious fear of water because of this. That isn't a reason not to do it, but equally simply because you have to do it doesn't mean nothing happens to the child.

You seem to simply want children not to be imprinted by their parents behavior because it is inconvenient to how you wish to discipline them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't stack up, this singular view of yours.

Of course it does, you see children mimicking their parents all the time. For example a child in a home with a smoker is much more likely to take up smoking.

As was discussed in the A&A thread on raising children in a religion, children as sponges. They soak up everything around them and they learn from example from their parents.

We cannot simply ignore this because it is inconvenient.

antiskeptic wrote: »

An aside: didn't you have a problem with punishment for wrongdoing in a recent discussion to do with criminal justice: deterrance ok, security ok, rehab ok .. punishment not ok?

That is because it is flawed to take what we know about children and apply it to adults.

A child will actually learn from punishment. There is little evidence an adult will. We still have this natural tendency to think that if we hurt someone they will not repeat what they did. That instinct comes from raising children, but we inaccurately apply it to young adults and adults.

For example, when the man in North Wall was shot by the teenager a common response on Boards.ie was to kick the crap out of these teenagers until they "learn some respect for others"

Such a view is fatally flawed. It won't teach them respect for others because they are already passed the point of being, as I say, above "a sponge"

antiskeptic wrote: »

Kids mimic - period. And they hit other kids. And they will be brought up to learn how to live life in a way considered appropriate by the parent. Generally that means they won't go around hitting other kids so it seems that both the natural tendency to hit others and the mimicry will be teased out in the wash

Are you basing that on anything other than your own experience? If so, how can you say "generally"?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your 'science' won't be dealing with this. Your 'science' will be dealing with violent, abusive households.

Not it isn't. It was clinical experiments with children.

I thought I posted this already but obviously not, I'll try and find the link again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I in no way suggested all that. What I suggest is that the sum total of ongoing upbringing is going to see the child move out of the stage where it hits other kids.

How exactly? You keep saying this but you have yet to explain how it actually happens.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the child cannot connect his behaviour (running out onto the road / wilfulness) with the negative consequence then no negative consequence should be delivered. In which case we're talking about the wrong age children.

That isn't how it works.

The child doesn't consciously connect his behavior with anything. It is imprinted on him. The child doesn't consciously understand what is happening.

If he did you wouldn't need to smack him in the first place. If the child understood that roads were dangerous you could simply say "Don't do that, it's dangerous"

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like, there's no point in smacking a baby (unless it's his arse at birth )

Smacking a baby works exactly the same as smacking a child, it imprints negative re-enforcement.

The whole point of smacking is that the child is too young to understand a rational discussion of what they are doing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, Wicknight. You've a child below the age of reasonable reasoning. And you've a string of dangers: the road, electricity, hotplates. You've a method open to you that will bring quick resolution to the issue and reduce the risk to your child from these dangers. Indeed, you can apply Pavlovian principles: combining a smart smack with a stern "No! Danger!" a few times - after which point the requirement for a danger-smack diminishes to nought.

Or you've the increased risk of danger to your child brought about by less effective methods of deflecting the child from danger.

Could you elaborate on how you resolve this dilemma?

Well it is sort of ridiculous to discuss such a general hypothetical. I would do everything I could to avoid physically hurting my child until it is absolutely necessary to physically hurt him at which point I would.

See my point about the sinking car. If it is absolutely necessary to hurt or injury my child in order to prevent greater injury I would.

But it would be foolish of me to think that simply because I have to do this the universe is going to morph into a version I like where there are no consequences of what is imprinted to the child because I did this.

This is the point you seem to be ignoring, simply because you think it is good to smack your child doesn't mean that there are no consequences of doing so.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the light of no scientific evidence that's all we have.

What do you mean no scientific evidence. There is lots of scientific evidence you are just ignoring it.

There is evidence that children mimic their parents.

There is evidence that children mimic violent behavior

There is evidence that children don't understand the notions you are assigning to them

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm assuming the annoyance-motivated disciplining involves a certain randomness or willy nillyedness. It's the randomness of annoyance motivated discipline that differentiates it from structural discipline.

It is only random to the parent. The child can't tell the difference. By its very nature smacking is supposed to limit how often a child does something. If the child is smacked once for going near the cooker he can't tell the difference between that and a random smack for going near the TV when daddy is watching football.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Smacking is but one of a suite of activities aimed at teaching the child what is or isn't acceptable behaviour according to the parents. I'd prefer he mimic me and hit another child than have no reason to mimic me and run out onto the road.

Fair enough. My issue is more your refusal to acknowledge that he will mimic you. If you are happy he does this as I said early this comes down to us having no common ground.

RGDATA!

this has become an interesting discussion, but I'm still curious for opinions from those better read in scriptures than me -
does "spare the rod" apply to kids who aren't your own? is there a line drawn in scripture between punishing your own children and punishing the children of others?

i'm just posting a reminder to what i asked earlier in the thread because nobody really addressed it and i'm just after seeing this story:

(bishop in germany quits after admitting smacking kids (orphans) in the face back in the 70s/80s)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100508/twl-bishop-quits-after-admitting-he-hit-3fd0ae9.html

i know this is a christian forum, not a catholic one, but i have already explained the personal relevance of this issue and why i'm curious whether the bible says anything about striking other peoples' kids, and whether there is a clear line drawn or not

Fanny Cradock

AFAIK, it's not specified. To get an answer I think that you would have to turn to cultural practices.

wolfsbane

RGDATA! wrote: »

this has become an interesting discussion, but I'm still curious for opinions from those better read in scriptures than me -
does "spare the rod" apply to kids who aren't your own? is there a line drawn in scripture between punishing your own children and punishing the children of others?

i'm just posting a reminder to what i asked earlier in the thread because nobody really addressed it and i'm just after seeing this story:

(bishop in germany quits after admitting smacking kids (orphans) in the face back in the 70s/80s)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100508/twl-bishop-quits-after-admitting-he-hit-3fd0ae9.html

i know this is a christian forum, not a catholic one, but i have already explained the personal relevance of this issue and why i'm curious whether the bible says anything about striking other peoples' kids, and whether there is a clear line drawn or not

The idea of in loco parentis comes in. Those with whom we leave our children MAY be delegated the authority to chastise as we would. Whether we think it wise in any particular circumstance is up to us.

The over-arching concern of Scripture is that the child be taught the difference between good and evil, how to live worthily. We must use the best means at our disposal. Sometimes they are not as ideal as we would like, but the option of doing nothing and letting the child grow into a selfish rebel is not on.
________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 12:11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Bduffman

How come for many people hitting a child as punishment is acceptable but hitting a adult as punishment is not?

StudentDad

Bduffman wrote: »

How come for many people hitting a child as punishment is acceptable but hitting a adult as punishment is not?

Ah that's easily answered Duffman - some people find it easier to attack a child as there is a lower risk of retaliation - if the same individual tried to 'punish' or 'chastise' an adult - that adult has various remedies available to him that the child does not.

SD

Bduffman

StudentDad wrote: »

Ah that's easily answered Duffman - some people find it easier to attack a child as there is a lower risk of retaliation - if the same individual tried to 'punish' or 'chastise' an adult - that adult has various remedies available to him that the child does not.

SD

Thats pretty much what I think too. It always seems to me that some people will try to justify hitting children by every reason under the sun to avoid the very obvious fact that usually children can't fight back.

JimiTime

StudentDad wrote: »

Ah that's easily answered Duffman - some people find it easier to attack a child as there is a lower risk of retaliation - if the same individual tried to 'punish' or 'chastise' an adult - that adult has various remedies available to him that the child does not.

SD

Bduffman wrote: »

Thats pretty much what I think too. It always seems to me that some people will try to justify hitting children by every reason under the sun to avoid the very obvious fact that usually children can't fight back.

Yeah, its much easier to get my kicks beating up children instead of adults. Feckin adults always hitting back! feckin hard too!! Same goes for eating them. Like this fully grown man I tried to cook in a nice tomato and red wine sauce there the other day. You know what he did? He hit me! Still have the shiner from the cheeky fecker. And he wouldn't climb in the pot, the swine! Cooking a child is so much easier though, I mean, just make the lid heavier and they aint getting out of that pot. MMMMM tasty.

So guys, how long do you simmer your children for?