Spanking - Yea or Nay?

[Poppy]

CB

Every cause of punishment is something you do to yourself. Mom says don't touch, you touch. That is you bringing punishment on yourself. God says repent and be saved, you choose not to. That is your bringing punishment on yourself.

That's not true. It's the threat of punishment that creates this situation because what would YOU do as a adult if i told you not to think of a cold beer on a hot day?? You can't help thinking of it!!!! How much more if you keep giving kids endless rules and instructions will a kid not be able to resist it to touch??? You are provoking their "sickness" (sin) and then punishing them for it...how messed up is that uh??

b- Punishment that brings about change isn't negative. The only part of punishment that could negative would be the pain but even then you admit that not all pain is negative. Let me quote, "there is pain for healing and good purpose".

Yeah there is a pain that leads to healing and some good purpose yep yep, that doesn't include punishment though. AND while we are still on punishment, that doesn't include what you said about the Eucharist either ... now i had a chance to think about it, because that is entirely a different reason and matter all together.

c- Lets run with your analogy. If someone is sick, but doesn't believe they are, how can you get them to realize their sickness? Heal them? Maybe, but if they didn't think they were sick they may not recognize the healing. So we're left to make them sicker. You don't take medicine when you feel good. You have to feel bad enough to trigger your mind to remember, oh, I need medicine I need to feel better. This is what God does.

Nope, just put a kid in a good environment and they will grow better, you dont need to force what you think is medicine down there throat.

d- You are using too broad of a brush. Just because there may be an upside to punishment doesn't make it the best option in all situations. In your example, yes, beating someone up who disrespects you will not help. But that isn't a loving punishment either. That is a human trying to exact revenge which is God's alone. But a mother who spanks a child who repeatedly disobeys a specific rule isn't looking for revenge, she is correcting the child. It isn't smart to ban corporal punishment because some misuse it. It would serve us better to teach love and boundaries to those who need them.

 
A "loving punishment" don't exist. Punishment is a end in itself. It doesn't have no goal apart from..... to punish.
Discipline is about teaching....your getting the two mixed up.... no suprise there then.

Rest my case 

[Quinault]

Poppy- So if we follow your line of thought God was wrong to tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit because by doing so he was provoking them to sin. You don't really have a leg to stand on with this line of thought scripturally. You can personally think anything you like. You can have theories, but I guarantee that once you are a parent all those theories will go flying out the window. You can't parent any two kids the same way. You can't discipline any two kids the same way. You can't even discipline one child the same way throughout their entire life. Blanket theories just don't apply to parenting in real life. Even when we think our parents are disciplining all the kids the same, in actuality they can't.

[Poppy]

Poppy- So if we follow your line of thought God was wrong to tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit because by doing so he was provoking them to sin. You don't really have a leg to stand on with this line of thought scripturally. You can personally think anything you like. You can have theories, but I guarantee that once you are a parent all those theories will go flying out the window. You can't parent any two kids the same way. You can't discipline any two kids the same way. You can't even discipline one child the same way throughout their entire life. Blanket theories just don't apply to parenting in real life. Even when we think our parents are disciplining all the kids the same, in actuality they can't.

aww its the old (yawn) "when you have kids you'll realise" point. I wondered when that desperate attempt to dismiss my experience and knowledge was going to be chunked up

where is that blokes ROFLCOPTER again??? i think i need it

[CBGardner]

CB

Every cause of punishment is something you do to yourself. Mom says don't touch, you touch. That is you bringing punishment on yourself. God says repent and be saved, you choose not to. That is your bringing punishment on yourself.

That's not true. It's the threat of punishment that creates this situation because what would YOU do as a adult if i told you not to think of a cold beer on a hot day?? You can't help thinking of it!!!! How much more if you keep giving kids endless rules and instructions will a kid not be able to resist it to touch??? You are provoking their "sickness" (sin) and then punishing them for it...how messed up is that uh??

b- Punishment that brings about change isn't negative. The only part of punishment that could negative would be the pain but even then you admit that not all pain is negative. Let me quote, "there is pain for healing and good purpose".

Yeah there is a pain that leads to healing and some good purpose yep yep, that doesn't include punishment though. AND while we are still on punishment, that doesn't include what you said about the Eucharist either ... now i had a chance to think about it, because that is entirely a different reason and matter all together.

c- Lets run with your analogy. If someone is sick, but doesn't believe they are, how can you get them to realize their sickness? Heal them? Maybe, but if they didn't think they were sick they may not recognize the healing. So we're left to make them sicker. You don't take medicine when you feel good. You have to feel bad enough to trigger your mind to remember, oh, I need medicine I need to feel better. This is what God does.

Nope, just put a kid in a good environment and they will grow better, you dont need to force what you think is medicine down there throat.

d- You are using too broad of a brush. Just because there may be an upside to punishment doesn't make it the best option in all situations. In your example, yes, beating someone up who disrespects you will not help. But that isn't a loving punishment either. That is a human trying to exact revenge which is God's alone. But a mother who spanks a child who repeatedly disobeys a specific rule isn't looking for revenge, she is correcting the child. It isn't smart to ban corporal punishment because some misuse it. It would serve us better to teach love and boundaries to those who need them.

 
A "loving punishment" don't exist. Punishment is a end in itself. It doesn't have no goal apart from..... to punish.
Discipline is about teaching....your getting the two mixed up.... no suprise there then.

Rest my case 

A- That is a bad argument. You're basically saying rules are wrong because they incite us to do wrong. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reason for rules. The rules exist whether we identify them as such or not. You are right saying that the kid will want to break all the rules. That shows us, though, how sinful we are not that rules are unneeded. Is God provoking our sickness by giving us rules/laws? That is a dangerous line to walk. Should we get rid of all laws and then have no jails because jail is a punishment?

B- I'm not following what you're saying. First it is pain can be good, but then you say if pain is created to teach us a lesson (punishment) then that's bad? That is exactly whats happening with the Eucharist case.

C- You act as though everything a kid needs or needs to know can sprout from nowhere. Parents, not kids are the ones in charge. Who's to say what a 'good' environment is? What if what you think is a good environment I think is a bad one? A parent is there to instruct and teach a kid, not just be a bystander to their natural evolution and them 'finding' their selves. You're spending too much time with your Uni friends. And yes sometimes a kid needs things they don't want. Otherwise every kid would be eating candy for all meals, touching every hot surface there is, and never brushing their teeth.

D- They are related, not mutually exclusive as you think. Sometimes part of the discipline process includes punishment, other times it isn't needed. Though you may see them as separate they are supposed to be used together. Punishment helps us teach; Like the jail scenario. It can also help deter bad behaviour. I'm not going to do X because I don't want to be punished. That isn't an end in itself but it helps people understand the idea of actions vs consequences and you teach from there. And you still haven't answered about punishment from God. Do you think God is wrong for punishing people? Read the lives of the Saints and see how God strikes down evil men.

I've enjoyed discussing this with you Poppy. You definitely have a worldview that I think is prevailing in society. However, much of your view is seen through the lens of your past. You have overcome much, and praise God for that. But don't be trapped in to thinking the only way you knew is the only way there is.

[Quinault]

Poppy- So if we follow your line of thought God was wrong to tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit because by doing so he was provoking them to sin. You don't really have a leg to stand on with this line of thought scripturally. You can personally think anything you like. You can have theories, but I guarantee that once you are a parent all those theories will go flying out the window. You can't parent any two kids the same way. You can't discipline any two kids the same way. You can't even discipline one child the same way throughout their entire life. Blanket theories just don't apply to parenting in real life. Even when we think our parents are disciplining all the kids the same, in actuality they can't.

aww its the old (yawn) "when you have kids you'll realise" point. I wondered when that desperate attempt to dismiss my experience and knowledge was going to be chunked up

where is that blokes ROFLCOPTER again??? i think i need it

Ok, please list all of your personal experience disciplining a child. Not your experiences being disciplined as a child, I want to hear of your personal successes in disciplining/correcting a child on a regular basis from the more parental/caregiver angle. Babysitting only counts if you never had to do the line "wait until your parents come home."

I have disciplined my own children for the last near decade and I did so with children in an educational setting for at least 5 years before that. I speak from personal experience rather than theories. And the truth is that you can't parent every child the same way. I have a child that all I have to do is gently tell them that what they did wasn't appropriate and they will burst into tears. I have dealt with children that don't care if they are hurting someone else. The natural consequence of biting your friends isn't much if they won't do anything in return and you don't care that you injured them. Do you teach the victim to lash out? That is hardly a healthy thing to do. We shouldn't teach children to be violent on purpose.

[Poppy]

I've enjoyed discussing this with you Poppy. You definitely have a worldview that I think is prevailing in society. However, much of your view is seen through the lens of your past. You have overcome much, and praise God for that. But don't be trapped in to thinking the only way you knew is the only way there is.

I wondered when the shutters would come down and you would get bored. I can understand why its hard to see what im saying because ppl have to admit that what they did with their kids was way off and that maybe there kids would have been better in life with having been delt with a diffrent way to what they did.

EVERYONES view is seen through the lense of their past, not just mine, that's where are experience comes from. The tricky bit is not to have a knee jerk against your past and still be controlled by it. I'm not. I think allot of other people are though and they don't see it. Even allot of people who come from kind of good solid homes where they have to continue doing somehting a certain way like their family did because otherwise they have to face the fact that their family wasn't all that they thought it was or theymight even have to face disapproval from the granny and grandad who can see that they are doing things a different way.... that's a heck of allot of pressure.
I haven't had to "overcome" any more then anyone else in life.... LOOK AROUND YOU!!! There is most people who have had hardships in life some way more than me or even some less than me but it affected them more. I don't think the only way i knew is the only way there is, because my view is so different to what i knew as a kid. You don't even know me. The next time you patronise or condescend to me (i don't know which is the right word) that will be the last time we discuss anything, just saying.

[Poppy]

Ok, please list all of your personal experience disciplining a child. Not your experiences being disciplined as a child, I want to hear of your personal successes in disciplining/correcting a child on a regular basis from the more parental/caregiver angle. Babysitting only counts if you never had to do the line "wait until your parents come home."

I have disciplined my own children for the last near decade and I did so with children in an educational setting for at least 5 years before that. I speak from personal experience rather than theories. And the truth is that you can't parent every child the same way. I have a child that all I have to do is gently tell them that what they did wasn't appropriate and they will burst into tears. I have dealt with children that don't care if they are hurting someone else. The natural consequence of biting your friends isn't much if they won't do anything in return and you don't care that you injured them. Do you teach the victim to lash out? That is hardly a healthy thing to do. We shouldn't teach children to be violent on purpose.

No because your going to type...."that doesn't count...and that doesn't count either" lolOl

Ok one thing i have been saying all through is that you can't parent every kid the same and we agree on that.

Ok list.... keep reading to the end though, don't like switch off when you get into the first sentence and laugh. I have seen a tonne of diffrent parents discipline and punish their kids, from mine, to staff in a kids home, to foster parents with their own kids. I have seen them do diffrent things AND i have been on the other side after when the kid was in their room listening to how they felt and what they think.
PLUS also i have been in soooooo many state care facilities with a tonne of kids of all ages and when we were all left alone to do stuff then we had to look after areselves and the older ones took care of the younger ones while the staff sat int he staff room watching the TV....which was rli ours but they took it for them to watch.

You can't deny that is allot of experience and knowledge of what people do, what works, what doesn't work and what the kids really think.

As to your situation with the kid who gets bite, it depends on how old they are and how old the other kids is and a tonne of other things. Thats what depends on what to do and it sounds like you have thought about that. I think sometimes it IS appropriate to teach a kid to attack someone back yeah i do. Biting is a bad example because when kids usually bite they are rli small so they maybe just need to be moved out that situation. But older kids to physically defend thereself against another kid?? Yep

[Poppy]

In fact.... i don't know how anyone can tell me that its ok to hit a kid and then tell me its not ok to encourage that same kid to defend itself when its being hit. I think there is no logic in that and its a warped mind view.

I am bigger than you and i can hit you, sorry tap... you
You can't "tap" another kid the same size as you when you get "tapped" for no apparent reason

Yeah no logic there

[akimori makoto]

Poppy, I'd be interested in your answer to this question I posed earlier in the thread:

I was once in a cab on the way home from court and I saw a toddler with his dad out the front of their home having a chat with a neighbour.

My cab is going along happily at the legal speed and suddenly, without any warning whatsoever, the toddler runs onto the road, right in front of the cab. We only missed the kid cos of my cabbie's quick reflexes -- he managed to swerve into the other lane and miss the child.

The father's response was to smack the kid on the backside. Personally, I was impressed by this -- not horrified.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but what alternative response do you guys propose would have been appropriate to immediately and indelibly impress upon this child of limited reasoning and capability for language the dangerousness/forbiddenness of his behaviour?

[Quinault]

Your experiences amount to your observation alone. You also are basing your experience on foster type situations that are quite different than a normal family situation. Foster families shouldn't try to apply the same techniques to children they basically just met. Attempting to use spanking in particular would be the worst thing you could do to a foster child. The worst thing to do with a foster child is pretend like they came to you without prior issues. Children aren't placed in foster care unless there is a reason for needing to do so. While I did grow up technically living in the house of my mother/step father, I knew plenty of foster kids first hand. The funny part was they they thought my parents were worse than any foster families they dealt with I imagine the large wooden cross with the names of all my friends on it and the forced exorcism didn't help much in this area. (I was offered emancipation or a foster situation by some state lawyers and turned it down. My parents had to calm down a bit when we moved in with a family friend) If I based my opinions of how to discipline a child solely upon what I have observed and experienced I wouldn't ever think any form of discipline is OK. Whether you think it clique or not, your view changes drastically once you have children of your own, or when you are the person solely responsible for the welfare of children in your care.

[Quinault]

It is exceedingly common for children in foster care to develop reactive attachment disorder or other behavioral or emotional issues. You simply can not apply those situations to what should be a healthy and normal family life. Some of the same issues crop up for children of nasty divorces, but really foster situations can't be dealt with in the same manner. And you certainly can't judge what works or does not work from observing those situations alone. I believe more than half of american indians placed in foster or adoptive families commit suicide. This doesn't mean that half of all american indian children as a whole commit suicide, you have to look at the data in context. The context of your observations only proves what works in the situations you observed them in, not what works for all of society as a whole.

[Poppy]

Poppy, I'd be interested in your answer to this question I posed earlier in the thread:

I was once in a cab on the way home from court and I saw a toddler with his dad out the front of their home having a chat with a neighbour.

My cab is going along happily at the legal speed and suddenly, without any warning whatsoever, the toddler runs onto the road, right in front of the cab. We only missed the kid cos of my cabbie's quick reflexes -- he managed to swerve into the other lane and miss the child.

The father's response was to smack the kid on the backside. Personally, I was impressed by this -- not horrified.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but what alternative response do you guys propose would have been appropriate to immediately and indelibly impress upon this child of limited reasoning and capability for language the dangerousness/forbiddenness of his behaviour?

He should of had hold of the kid, why smack the kid for the dads negligence?? The dad must of known that the kid didn't have the skills or reasoning ability to judge traffic .....should you smack a 18 month old baby for trying to touch the hot kettle too?? oh and dont forget to smack the baby for pulling on the cord to the iron..... oh and smack him for putting his hand in your cup of coffee and getting scolded.....phew all that smacking!!! A parents job is hard huh??

lolOl do me a favour

[Poppy]

The context of your observations only proves what works in the situations you observed them in, not what works for all of society as a whole.

and so the same can be said for people who parent there own kids, then think that experience gives them greater insight.... it don't.... its only limited to their kids thats all.... Yeah i only have observation BUT it is with my experience of my parent and her joblo, and of observing fostercared kids AND of seeing people with their own kids (normal) and also of looking after kids myself growing up. but (1) I'm not trying to say that one thing is going to work for the whole of society and (2) we are back to parenting styles again which don't work because the parent is more fixed on their "style" then they are on WHO the actual kid is.

I will let all the midwifes and gynes and the obstetricians know that unless they have had experience of there own kids, then their "experience" is worthless huh?? And all the teachers that don't have there own kids and....

anyways we are going nowhere. At least we agree on that you can't parent any two kids the same 

[CBGardner]

I've enjoyed discussing this with you Poppy. You definitely have a worldview that I think is prevailing in society. However, much of your view is seen through the lens of your past. You have overcome much, and praise God for that. But don't be trapped in to thinking the only way you knew is the only way there is.

I wondered when the shutters would come down and you would get bored. I can understand why its hard to see what im saying because ppl have to admit that what they did with their kids was way off and that maybe there kids would have been better in life with having been delt with a diffrent way to what they did.

EVERYONES view is seen through the lense of their past, not just mine, that's where are experience comes from. The tricky bit is not to have a knee jerk against your past and still be controlled by it. I'm not. I think allot of other people are though and they don't see it. Even allot of people who come from kind of good solid homes where they have to continue doing somehting a certain way like their family did because otherwise they have to face the fact that their family wasn't all that they thought it was or theymight even have to face disapproval from the granny and grandad who can see that they are doing things a different way.... that's a heck of allot of pressure.
I haven't had to "overcome" any more then anyone else in life.... LOOK AROUND YOU!!! There is most people who have had hardships in life some way more than me or even some less than me but it affected them more. I don't think the only way i knew is the only way there is, because my view is so different to what i knew as a kid. You don't even know me. The next time you patronise or condescend to me (i don't know which is the right word) that will be the last time we discuss anything, just saying.

Pardon me for offending you. Condescension was not my aim so please forgive me. 

[vamrat]

Poppy, I'd be interested in your answer to this question I posed earlier in the thread:

I was once in a cab on the way home from court and I saw a toddler with his dad out the front of their home having a chat with a neighbour.

My cab is going along happily at the legal speed and suddenly, without any warning whatsoever, the toddler runs onto the road, right in front of the cab. We only missed the kid cos of my cabbie's quick reflexes -- he managed to swerve into the other lane and miss the child.

The father's response was to smack the kid on the backside. Personally, I was impressed by this -- not horrified.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but what alternative response do you guys propose would have been appropriate to immediately and indelibly impress upon this child of limited reasoning and capability for language the dangerousness/forbiddenness of his behaviour?

He should of had hold of the kid, why smack the kid for the dads negligence?? The dad must of known that the kid didn't have the skills or reasoning ability to judge traffic .....should you smack a 18 month old baby for trying to touch the hot kettle too?? oh and dont forget to smack the baby for pulling on the cord to the iron..... oh and smack him for putting his hand in your cup of coffee and getting scolded.....phew all that smacking!!! A parents job is hard huh??

lolOl do me a favour

Yes, parents must be everywhere at all times and know everything that is going on.  Thank God for Amphetamines...  You can remove the kid's hand from the burner a hundred times but until he is able to grasp that it is going to hurt him he's gonna keep on at it, especially since the burner is some interesting plaything his mommy won't let him touch.  What's better, giving him a good lick so he remembers or third degree burns?  Some kids will get it right away just by telling them.  Some won't.  It seems like this is Quinault's line of thought on the matter.  Square pegs for square holes.  Round pegs for round holes. 

[Quinault]

I personally don't trust anyone as my midwife that has never given birth.

"(2) we are back to parenting styles again which don't work because the parent is more fixed on their "style" then they are on WHO the actual kid is."

You really aren't reading what I have written. I have numerous times mentioned that you can't parent/discipline any two children the same way. Further, I have said that you can't even discipline/parent one child the same way throughout their entire life. I suspect you are glossing over much of what I am writing because you are assuming what is contained in between the parts you assume you disagree with. If you actually took the time to slowly read and attempt to understand what I am getting at, I think you would realize that you agree with me more than you realize.

[Poppy]

No worries CBG, <<hugz>>   

Square pegs for square holes.  Round pegs for round holes.

What about the trangles?? 

[Alive]

I personally don't trust anyone as my midwife that has never given birth.

"(2) we are back to parenting styles again which don't work because the parent is more fixed on their "style" then they are on WHO the actual kid is."

You really aren't reading what I have written. I have numerous times mentioned that you can't parent/discipline any two children the same way. Further, I have said that you can't even discipline/parent one child the same way throughout their entire life. I suspect you are glossing over much of what I am writing because you are assuming what is contained in between the parts you assume you disagree with. If you actually took the time to slowly read and attempt to understand what I am getting at, I think you would realize that you agree with me more than you realize.

+ + +

You right people are ignorant.

Only desire of such activist’s terror is to abuse our religious and parenting obligations to take advantage of our children’s and turn them in will less slaves. 

[Poppy]

I personally don't trust anyone as my midwife that has never given birth.

"(2) we are back to parenting styles again which don't work because the parent is more fixed on their "style" then they are on WHO the actual kid is."

You really aren't reading what I have written. I have numerous times mentioned that you can't parent/discipline any two children the same way. Further, I have said that you can't even discipline/parent one child the same way throughout their entire life. I suspect you are glossing over much of what I am writing because you are assuming what is contained in between the parts you assume you disagree with. If you actually took the time to slowly read and attempt to understand what I am getting at, I think you would realize that you agree with me more than you realize.

I am reading what you have written and if you read four posts back you will find that i already agreed with you.
Here's the quote in case you missed it.

Poppy said....."At least we agree on that you can't parent any two kids the same"   

but i suspect you are glossing over much of what i am writing because you are making assumptions. If you actually took the time to slowly read and attempt to understand what i am getting at Quinault, i think you will realise that you agree with me more than you think.

[Dyhn]

I am still intrigued to know what measures you would use in certain situations. I realise it is much dependent on the individual child, however, there must be a discipline tool kit, as it were, from which you can draw.

~ Dyhn

[Poppy]

yeah i wouldn't even smack a kid

when its small i mean rli small i would probably move the kid away
when its just walking i would move it and say no.... until it realised that the more time it spent sitting on my knee when it wanted to go play then it would realise not to do the thing that made it have to stop playing and be held still.

kids love to have fun and attention so i would probably do the same thing just make sure the fun stopped until it realised not to do the thing that was bad or dangerous.

I dont think i would have no problems with a teenager because i think if you did the right stuff when they are small then you wont have a problem when there bigger. If i did suddenly have a problem that i tried to sort out but that the older kid wouldnt sort out with me then yeah a older kid i would swing for them definitely no question. I think when they get to being as tall as me and can stand there ground and if they got in my face, then yeah i wouldnt stand for that. But i dont think that would happen. I think i have enough ways to sort something out.

[JamesRottnek]

Poppy, my sister is dating someone who has a two year old boy (who is constantly getting into trouble).  I am, in general, not a big proponent of spanking as a punishment.  However, I have believed that spanking as a corrective is a good tool, and my experiences with that little boy (my sister babysits him during the day while his dad is at work, when she has the day off, so I've spent a good amount of time around him - if for no other reason that he is so loud I can't usually sleep well).  For instance, when he starts to go up the stairs, he gets popped on the butt (not too hard, but enough so he knows that he did something he wasn't supposed to).  What is the reason for this?  It's not because stairs are evil and he should be swiftly punished for trying to interact with them.  Rather, it is because if he doesn't equate a negative feeling to going up the stairs on his own, it is likely he will try and go up the stairs, fall down them, and then equate negative feelings to stairs in general. 

The example of the stove illustrates this perfectly.  Children will frequently not listen when you just tell them "Don't do that!"  This is especially true of young children.  As a result, they are likely to try and touch a stove if you simply tell them not to.  You then have two choices: 1.) Smack their hand/pop their butt every time they try and touch the stove, until they realize it's probably smart not to; or 2.) Let them go ahead and touch the stove.  Option one will hurt mildly for a minute or two.  Option two will result in severe pain, and - depending on how hot the stove is - the possibility of an emergency room visit.  Which is the better alternative?  Short-lasting, mild pain, or long-lasting severe pain?  I think the former is preferred to the latter.

One could similarly compare this to God (of course, keeping in mind that He is infinitely wise, and so when He chooses to utilize a tool, it will always be the correct choice).  When we do things we shouldn't, things that are bad for our bodies or our souls, God will sometimes inflict some sort of negative upon us.  This isn't to punish us, but to correct us.  He knows that, if he allows us to do as we please, we will wind up in a much worse state than we are if He inflicts a (relatively) mild punishment upon us.  For instance, suppose you are driving drunk.  Now, suppose God gave you the consequence of running your car into a tree, totaling it, and winding up in the hospital for a day or so.  This may seem like a terrible thing.  However, suppose God did it because He knew that, had He not, you would have not only totaled your car and wound up in the hospital, but also killed a child in the process?  Was he wrong to inflict pain on you to prevent greater pain?  While of course it is on a much smaller scale, this is quite similar to the parent who smacks their kid's hand when he goes to touch the stove: the parent does it to prevent a much greater pain from happening.

[Dyhn]

Those all sound like very good tools to have in your kit Poppy. I imagine at the time, you would probably need to find other ways to protect and guide a child other than the few you've listed here as if you're blessed with several children to deal with at one time you will only have one lap and too much to do in one day.

~ Dyhn

[primuspilus]

I dont think i would have no problems with a teenager because i think if you did the right stuff when they are small then you wont have a problem when there bigger

I really laughed at this one because I happen to be raising a teenager. Sorry, this is just not so.

pp

[rakovsky]

Poppy, my sister is dating someone who has a two year old boy (who is constantly getting into trouble).  I am, in general, not a big proponent of spanking as a punishment.  However, I have believed that spanking as a corrective is a good tool, and my experiences with that little boy (my sister babysits him during the day while his dad is at work, when she has the day off, so I've spent a good amount of time around him - if for no other reason that he is so loud I can't usually sleep well).  For instance, when he starts to go up the stairs, he gets popped on the butt (not too hard, but enough so he knows that he did something he wasn't supposed to).  What is the reason for this?  It's not because stairs are evil and he should be swiftly punished for trying to interact with them.  Rather, it is because if he doesn't equate a negative feeling to going up the stairs on his own, it is likely he will try and go up the stairs, fall down them, and then equate negative feelings to stairs in general.  

The example of the stove illustrates this perfectly.  Children will frequently not listen when you just tell them "Don't do that!"  This is especially true of young children.  As a result, they are likely to try and touch a stove if you simply tell them not to.  You then have two choices: 1.) Smack their hand/pop their butt every time they try and touch the stove, until they realize it's probably smart not to; or 2.) Let them go ahead and touch the stove.  Option one will hurt mildly for a minute or two.  Option two will result in severe pain, and - depending on how hot the stove is - the possibility of an emergency room visit.  Which is the better alternative?  Short-lasting, mild pain, or long-lasting severe pain?  I think the former is preferred to the latter.

One could similarly compare this to God (of course, keeping in mind that He is infinitely wise, and so when He chooses to utilize a tool, it will always be the correct choice).  When we do things we shouldn't, things that are bad for our bodies or our souls, God will sometimes inflict some sort of negative upon us.  This isn't to punish us, but to correct us.  He knows that, if he allows us to do as we please, we will wind up in a much worse state than we are if He inflicts a (relatively) mild punishment upon us.  For instance, suppose you are driving drunk.  Now, suppose God gave you the consequence of running your car into a tree, totaling it, and winding up in the hospital for a day or so.  This may seem like a terrible thing.  However, suppose God did it because He knew that, had He not, you would have not only totaled your car and wound up in the hospital, but also killed a child in the process?  Was he wrong to inflict pain on you to prevent greater pain?  While of course it is on a much smaller scale, this is quite similar to the parent who smacks their kid's hand when he goes to touch the stove: the parent does it to prevent a much greater pain from happening.

James:

1) Kids on stairs:
Your premise is that pain is basically the only way to teach kids.
Do you think they cannot understand it when you give them commands? Like they are almost mindless dogs or pets?
If so, please remember that even dogs and pets are not trained by inflicting pain.

2) God works in mysterious ways. It could be that He works by inflicting pain as an educating punishment. But then we also have the example of the first Christians who were punished and harmed, but not for some evil. There is the example of Job who appeared to be punished alot by God, but for what?
On the other hand, alot of times the ancient Israelites thought they were being punished for lack of faith. Plus, sometimes bad things happen to people where they are killed as a result of bad decisions, like DUI. In those cases, it is hard to say that these bad things happen to teach them.

In Christian prayers we ask God to forgive us our sins. The idea with forgiveness and pardoning someone is that you don't hold the person's sins against them anymore and do not try to harm them as punishment or revenge. Thus, in the OT and NT, if God forgave someone, the idea was that he averted the strong punishment he was going to give them, I think. I remember for example it said if the Israelites repented, the OT said God would hold back his wrath.

Alot of people in modern society don't "get" this. They think that you can pardon someone and still try to punish them.
I could see your example about punishment for instructive purposes, but if the person repented and won't do it again, then it wouldn't be necessary for instruction anymore.

So the best is if you can give your kid at least the same respect you give some dog- use instructions rather than pain. Then the child is sorry, and there is no point in punishment at all. Plus, even if he/she isn't sorry, there are other ways of punishment besides the degradation of physical pain.

Fear, pain and shame makes the soul ugly, while love makes the soul happy and responsive. It seems possible that for some extraordinary people though, being mistreated could actually make them stronger, like a challenge they can overcome. Perhaps if you kick a dog and harm it, this may make the dog have a more ugly personality, but it may become more aggressive and a better dog-fighter as a result.  Likewise, alot of hurt children become bullies, but on the other hand, the experience may also make them tougher. Perhaps the harm the early Christians suffered made them more resilient after all.

In any case, I think the best thing is to treat children like you would want to be treated- with compassion and understanding, rather than with painful punishments.

Hal

[Poppy]

Poppy, my sister is dating someone who has a two year old boy (who is constantly getting into trouble).  I am, in general, not a big proponent of spanking as a punishment.  However, I have believed that spanking as a corrective is a good tool, and my experiences with that little boy (my sister babysits him during the day while his dad is at work, when she has the day off, so I've spent a good amount of time around him - if for no other reason that he is so loud I can't usually sleep well).  For instance, when he starts to go up the stairs, he gets popped on the butt (not too hard, but enough so he knows that he did something he wasn't supposed to).  What is the reason for this?  It's not because stairs are evil and he should be swiftly punished for trying to interact with them.  Rather, it is because if he doesn't equate a negative feeling to going up the stairs on his own, it is likely he will try and go up the stairs, fall down them, and then equate negative feelings to stairs in general. 

The example of the stove illustrates this perfectly.  Children will frequently not listen when you just tell them "Don't do that!"  This is especially true of young children.  As a result, they are likely to try and touch a stove if you simply tell them not to.  You then have two choices: 1.) Smack their hand/pop their butt every time they try and touch the stove, until they realize it's probably smart not to; or 2.) Let them go ahead and touch the stove.  Option one will hurt mildly for a minute or two.  Option two will result in severe pain, and - depending on how hot the stove is - the possibility of an emergency room visit.  Which is the better alternative?  Short-lasting, mild pain, or long-lasting severe pain?  I think the former is preferred to the latter.

One could similarly compare this to God (of course, keeping in mind that He is infinitely wise, and so when He chooses to utilize a tool, it will always be the correct choice).  When we do things we shouldn't, things that are bad for our bodies or our souls, God will sometimes inflict some sort of negative upon us.  This isn't to punish us, but to correct us.  He knows that, if he allows us to do as we please, we will wind up in a much worse state than we are if He inflicts a (relatively) mild punishment upon us.  For instance, suppose you are driving drunk.  Now, suppose God gave you the consequence of running your car into a tree, totaling it, and winding up in the hospital for a day or so.  This may seem like a terrible thing.  However, suppose God did it because He knew that, had He not, you would have not only totaled your car and wound up in the hospital, but also killed a child in the process?  Was he wrong to inflict pain on you to prevent greater pain?  While of course it is on a much smaller scale, this is quite similar to the parent who smacks their kid's hand when he goes to touch the stove: the parent does it to prevent a much greater pain from happening.

You've said pretty much the same as everyone else, you haven't added anything new so i don't know why you bothered. My answer is the same to you as it is to everyone else.

People who smack, know in their conscience its way bad to do it, because they try and lessen what they are doing with their choice of words like "tap" and "pop" when rli the whole point of it, like you said is to inflict physical pain from a bigger stronger human being than the small baby is.

and the stove thing is a logical fallacy because ......you HAD to "pop" them or they would have hurt themself on the stove....well not if you move them away from the stove or keep them out of the danger area....that's your job as a parent. Don't smack a kid for your negligence uh?? In this country (Britain) when you adopt a kid, your not allowed to "pop" them even lightly so, then lazy parents have to find another way to keep them protected from the stove, fondue, open fire, dog, vase, electrical socket, glass door, stairs......W/EVA!!!!

And your mixing up punishment and correction, same as everyone else does.

Poor baby that your sister has got, to be labelled a trouble maker when hes just being a baby and needs adults to put a stair gate up or move him away and say "no" he will get the message and learn same as a smack would do. Actually no a smack would probably work quicker as the baby will be scared of getting hurt by its own parents!!! so yeah ....easier for the lazy parent, more horrible way for the poor baby to learn.

[Poppy]

I dont think i would have no problems with a teenager because i think if you did the right stuff when they are small then you wont have a problem when there bigger

I really laughed at this one because I happen to be raising a teenager. Sorry, this is just not so.

pp

well then give them allot of space and you probably wont have no problems. Teenagers need allot of space and not to be bothered about things all the time that matter to adults. It doesn't mean it matters to them. Adults go on and on about randomness and after the tenth time you hear it does your head in!!

[JamesRottnek]

Ravosky, I certainly do think that words can teach children and that they should always be used first.  However, children frequently don't listen.  If they do listen, then of course you don't need to use any physical means to keep them from doing something.  However, if they do not listen, you may well need to.  I was also not saying that God has never punished people and only ever allowed or caused pain to instruct.  Of course he has punished people (I doubt that all those people who drowned in the flood were being instructed by such an act), but I was stressing that sometimes God has bad things happen to a person to prevent an even worse thing from happening, because (in His infinite wisdom) He knows what is right around the corner.  I also don't think that the use, by God, of some sort of corrective action that involves some pain or other negative, is necessarily a punishment and so can't happen if God forgives us.  Of course He won't punish us if we are forgiven, but that doesn't mean he won't cause some sort of pain in our lives to prevent worse pain, as a result of our actions.

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

[JamesRottnek]

I dont think i would have no problems with a teenager because i think if you did the right stuff when they are small then you wont have a problem when there bigger

I really laughed at this one because I happen to be raising a teenager. Sorry, this is just not so.

pp

well then give them allot of space and you probably wont have no problems. Teenagers need allot of space and not to be bothered about things all the time that matter to adults. It doesn't mean it matters to them. Adults go on and on about randomness and after the tenth time you hear it does your head in!!

I can say without doubt that this is entirely wrong.  I myself am 17, and I consequently know many teenagers.  Each teenager is, being a person, unique.  For some, more latitude will lead to better results.  For others, less latitude will lead to better results.  People are not, generally, going to do well with a one size fits all approach.  Most frequently, one size fits all in fact fits none.  Certainly helicopter parents are almost never likely to be good, but parents who never interfere in their teenagers life are frequently going to see results they hoped they wouldn't.

[Poppy]

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

yeah i've spent a tonne of time around a whole bunch of diffrent kids.

Are you seriously trying to make the point that if you smack them then they won't get into a spot when you're not looking?? lolOl

[Alive]

....Teenagers need allot of space and not to be bothered about things ....

It say about every thing. No more question asked.
Anti-Christian try to teach Christians how to raise kids.

[rakovsky]

Alive,

By the way, can I please ask what country you are from?

[JamesRottnek]

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

yeah i've spent a tonne of time around a whole bunch of diffrent kids.

Are you seriously trying to make the point that if you smack them then they won't get into a spot when you're not looking?? lolOl

No, I am saying that sometimes smacking a child's hand gets across the point that they aren't to touch something, even when using just words fails.

[Alive]

Alive,

By the way, can I please ask what country you are from?

i am sojourner on the eath (Ps.118.19), kingdom of heaven is our country.

[primuspilus]

No, I am saying that sometimes smacking a child's hand gets across the point that they aren't to touch something, even when using just words fails

+1

[Poppy]

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

yeah i've spent a tonne of time around a whole bunch of diffrent kids.

Are you seriously trying to make the point that if you smack them then they won't get into a spot when you're not looking?? lolOl

No, I am saying that sometimes smacking a child's hand gets across the point that they aren't to touch something, even when using just words fails.

Fine so you've got your point across to the kid by smacking their hand, now what happens when you (who smacks) leaves the room to go to the bathroom?? Is the kid going to get in a spot of bother or not?? Because that was your point right?? Not always being present with them. So you leave the room and.....that's when you don't have a point lolOl

[Punch]

I dont think i would have no problems with a teenager because i think if you did the right stuff when they are small then you wont have a problem when there bigger.

I have raise three boys who turned out quite well.  I have to say that the above is a full boatload of BS.  And I don't mean a small boatload either.

[primuspilus]

I have raise three boys who turned out quite well.  I have to say that the above is a full boatload of BS.  And I don't mean a small boatload either.

As most of this thread is. I'll spank my kids because I think when done correctly, it works. I wont go overboard because that was done to me to a huge degree (in so much I  was removed from my home as a child).

So you leave the room and.....that's when you don't have a point

You have obviously no idea what diciplining your children is all about then. Maybe I missed it, but do you have children of your own? (if you mentioned earlier, my apologies)

PP

[JamesRottnek]

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

yeah i've spent a tonne of time around a whole bunch of diffrent kids.

Are you seriously trying to make the point that if you smack them then they won't get into a spot when you're not looking?? lolOl

No, I am saying that sometimes smacking a child's hand gets across the point that they aren't to touch something, even when using just words fails.

Fine so you've got your point across to the kid by smacking their hand, now what happens when you (who smacks) leaves the room to go to the bathroom?? Is the kid going to get in a spot of bother or not?? Because that was your point right?? Not always being present with them. So you leave the room and.....that's when you don't have a point lolOl

When you leave the room, if they learned anything, they will still have learned it.

[Poppy]

So you leave the room and.....that's when you don't have a point

You have obviously no idea what diciplining your children is all about then. Maybe I missed it, but do you have children of your own? (if you mentioned earlier, my apologies)

PP

if your going to rip my sentence out of its context then im not suprised you are making huge assumptions about me.

Knowing what to do with kids isn't about experience. People with tonnes of experience get it way badley wrong sometimes. That makes no diffrence what so ever because they WOULD say they did a good job. I wonder if there kids would agree when there not around to stare at them when they are giving a answer.

Yeah i have seven kids.... does that make my answers any more valid?? Of course not...ugh!! There is some theologians that have MEGA experience of reading the bible and have been Christian a tonne of years but they still go off into heresy. Experience counts for a rli small tiny part and it has no bearing on whats true and whats not true.

If its true its true and if its not its not...end of

[Poppy]

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

yeah i've spent a tonne of time around a whole bunch of diffrent kids.

Are you seriously trying to make the point that if you smack them then they won't get into a spot when you're not looking?? lolOl

No, I am saying that sometimes smacking a child's hand gets across the point that they aren't to touch something, even when using just words fails.

Fine so you've got your point across to the kid by smacking their hand, now what happens when you (who smacks) leaves the room to go to the bathroom?? Is the kid going to get in a spot of bother or not?? Because that was your point right?? Not always being present with them. So you leave the room and.....that's when you don't have a point lolOl

When you leave the room, if they learned anything, they will still have learned it.

Exactly but that dont necessarily back up your point of having to use smacking does it???  >_>

[Dyhn]

It's true that as a parent, I would say that I had done a fairly good job (one would hope) and I agree somewhat that experience cannot always be the measure one uses to determine competnncy, however, experience does give an individual hindsight, which hopefully helps them to learn by their mistakes.

~ Dyhn

[JamesRottnek]

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

yeah i've spent a tonne of time around a whole bunch of diffrent kids.

Are you seriously trying to make the point that if you smack them then they won't get into a spot when you're not looking?? lolOl

No, I am saying that sometimes smacking a child's hand gets across the point that they aren't to touch something, even when using just words fails.

Fine so you've got your point across to the kid by smacking their hand, now what happens when you (who smacks) leaves the room to go to the bathroom?? Is the kid going to get in a spot of bother or not?? Because that was your point right?? Not always being present with them. So you leave the room and.....that's when you don't have a point lolOl

When you leave the room, if they learned anything, they will still have learned it.

Exactly but that dont necessarily back up your point of having to use smacking does it???  >_>

No, but it discredits your idea that the minute a parent leaves the room, if they have used physical corrective techniques on their child, the child will ignore what their parents have taught them.

[Poppy]

Poppy, have you spent significant amount of time around small children?  Unless you are never going to go to the bathroom without them in the bathroom, unless you are never going to turn your back for even one moment, or pay attention to a phone call for even a second, small children will do things they shouldn't.  Do you really think it is realistic for a parent to never have a moment where their small child is out of view?  I fail to see how it is negligence to turn your back on a child, so that you can do something important.

yeah i've spent a tonne of time around a whole bunch of diffrent kids.

Are you seriously trying to make the point that if you smack them then they won't get into a spot when you're not looking?? lolOl

No, I am saying that sometimes smacking a child's hand gets across the point that they aren't to touch something, even when using just words fails.

Fine so you've got your point across to the kid by smacking their hand, now what happens when you (who smacks) leaves the room to go to the bathroom?? Is the kid going to get in a spot of bother or not?? Because that was your point right?? Not always being present with them. So you leave the room and.....that's when you don't have a point lolOl

When you leave the room, if they learned anything, they will still have learned it.

Exactly but that dont necessarily back up your point of having to use smacking does it???  >_>

No, but it discredits your idea that the minute a parent leaves the room, if they have used physical corrective techniques on their child, the child will ignore what their parents have taught them.

i didnt even assert that you nolly!! lolOl

I was merely pointing out that YOUR assertation of..... you need to smack them because you can't be with them ALL the time....

non sequitur?? Ithinkyso

[Dyhn]

This discussion is rather comical to me, in that, most of the actions i felt sure i would take, in any given situation, more often than not, went out the window, in favour of whatever solved the situation in the fastest, most convenient way possible for a busy mum in the midst of a harried day. That seemed to be the hallmark of my 'parenting style'.

;~)

~ Dyhn

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox Family Forum > Topic: Spanking - Yea or Nay?