Thread: Sould corporal punishment be outlawed?

also, i use to be an investigator for child protective services. we did not look at spankings as abuse unless bruises were left.

Child abuse would be striking a child when it does more than inflict pain, particularly injuries. It's when someone strikes knowing that they are making enough force to injure someone, and that sort of behavior was usually associated with anger or frustration in my past experiences.

I will probably change my mind about corporal punishment in the future, but I certainly feel strongly against hitting someone with the intention of creating long-lasting injuries as a form of disciplinary action. It might work for you, but it didn't work for me.

Daniel, when spanking a child, you don't do it to cause injuries, you don't even do it to leave marks. No I don't agree with that at all but like i said earlier, as little as a very light tap can do the trick. some times you have to give them a more firm spanking but most of the time very light to medium gets it done and usually withen 10 minutes or so their crying has stopped and they are back to what thy were suppose to be doing.

Total isolation. It is effective. Not for some wimpy 5-minute stint, either...I'm talking an hour...alone...in their own room. Remember how effective the "silent treatment" was? Fun at first, followed by a whole lot of not-fun. 5 or 10 minutes is nothing...an hour, though, is an eternity to a youngster.

Originally Posted by mario92

I'm talking an hour...alone...in their own room.

Sounds like it would work just as well as a five second spanking.

If I were the given the choice, I would say the latter is a much more merciful manner of punishment. Wouldn't you?

I just don't see where physical pain has to enter the equation at all. There are numerous ways to sufficiently punish a child without spanking. The whole thing seems kind of outdated and useless, as well as barbaric. Besides, just from looking around, it seems pretty darn evident which children get a spanking; they are more prone to hit at or swat other children. Really, spanking only teaches kids that it's okay to hit when someone does something "bad." I find this to be very un-okay.

Originally Posted by mini0991

Spanking amounts to nothing more than domestic abuse. I think it should be outlawed. There is ZERO justification you have for corporal punishment of children. ZERO.

Why because "children" are not resolute in will, or have the capacity to know right and wrong...? spanking amounts to nothing more than domestic abuse? What it amounts to is fear over love, and that is the unhealthy solution most people take... and not to blame; love is such a weak impetus for order...

Besides corporal punishment does make logical sense if all the conditions are meet. Considering we ignore any "God" defining our ethics and morals, really it comes down to a balancing of the offense. Obviously, the gravity of chopping a man's arm off, would be equally having your arm chopped off. Thats the only objective way to measure the gravity of it, simply because any other form of consequence is not relative and is left for the subjective response, i.e.. prison.

Corporal punishment is very primitive and still in motion because we have find no other objective way to govern the gravity of the criminal offense's to an extent that there is no oblique uncertainty. Except of course in 7 year old "babys", because they are cute, they get to survive. Or perhaps the 16 or 17 year old, obviously because they don't have the capacity to truly have grave matter and consent, right???

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Fuck you and you're annoying fucking bullshit. In every topic of every post you write shit that does nothing to contribute to the thread. You mosy around your non-existent explanations to act like there is some thought behind your words. You say some shit like:

"A husband hitting a wife and a parent spanking a child are two different things. Two VERY different things." Without providing an explanation as to why you think this is. Naturally I ask you, and first you want me to explain a point I never made in the first place. You should be used to "explain" by now, having been asked to explain your ludicrous and delusional ideals that you smear all over this forum. It's no wonder you ask for your threads to be locked, and say shit like "I refuse to participate."

You are a hopeless schmuck.

This is the quote that should lock this useless thread.


Noogah....

You are a hopeless schmuck.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

This is the quote that should lock this useless thread.


Noogah....

You are a hopeless schmuck.

"Noogah, you are a hopeless schmuck."

~Lock~

Originally Posted by Mario92

"Noogah, you are a hopeless schmuck."

~Lock~

Originally Posted by Bonsay

here repeating things over and over again until they become true just doesn't cut it.

I usually disagree with Bonsay, but today I must agree with him.

How is locking someone in their room for an hour any worse than a quick spanking?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Really, spanking only teaches kids that it's okay to hit when someone does something "bad."

I undestand your logic, but it doesn't teach hitting if the spanking is done properly. To hit is to lash out at someone who has done wrong. To spank is to tell the child what he did, and then use an object (not something huge, something small) to spank him in a controlled manner.

Now if the kid does something wrong, and then you turn around a slap him on the arm, then yeah, that teaches hitting, but it isn't the proper way to do things.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

This is the quote that should lock this useless thread.


Noogah....

You are a hopeless schmuck.

Notice he still hasn't listed the key differences between hitting a wife vs a child...Sigh.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Notice he still hasn't listed the key differences between hitting a wife vs a child...Sigh.

Your wife is a completely developed equal who has already been through child rearing, and is supposed to be your partner. Your mate. You may know a little better than your wife, and you may not.

A child has not yet developed, and is not your equal. Not saying that he is less than a human, but as far as general mentality goes, he knows far less. He needs discipline in order to develop properly.

Now your question is ridiculous. You could use it for any form discipline. You send your kids for timeouts, so why don't you send your wife on a timeout? Why don't you tell your wife to sit in a corner? For the same reason that you don't do these things is why you wouldn't hit your wife.

From a Christian standpoint, I have another reason.

Originally Posted by Matthew 19:5-6 (King James Version)

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Bible says that to become married, two become as one in body and spirit.

Would you hit yourself? No, of course not. So why would would you hit your wife if your both one?

Would you scream at yourself, and mentally abuse yourself? Of course not. So why would you mentally abuse your wife?

The list of differences could really go on, and on, and on. Honestly, it's two completely different scenarios!

Anyone who believes hitting their child is a method of good parenting is an idiot. Just FYI.

What methods of discipline would YOU suggest, A roxxor?

BTW, where does roxxor come from?

It is completely dependent on the situation, but would certainly never involve bringing physical harm to my child. Only a barbaric idiot would rationalize that that is an appropriate punishment for a CHILD.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

It is completely dependent on the situation, but would certainly never involve bringing physical harm to my child. Only a barbaric idiot would rationalize that that is an appropriate punishment for a CHILD.

Notice how Noogah seems to be in the mindset of, "My way is the only way." There are scads of different ways you could handle your children, and spanking is really quite far down the totem pole.

Pardon me if you're more open-minded than this, but it's certainly how you seem to be presenting yourself...

Originally Posted by A roxxor

It is completely dependent on the situation

I agree totally. As I have said before. Some need it, some don't. SOme need it less, others need it more.

Originally Posted by A roxxor

never involve bringing physical harm to my child.

Me neither!!!

But to spank is not to harm. To abuse is to harm, and they are two seperate things.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Pardon me if you're more open-minded than this, but it's certainly how you seem to be presenting yourself...

I am more open minded, but, I guess your right. I've been presenting myself in a rather..."My way is the only way." way.

SOrry, I'll try to work on that.

Grazi, mon amie.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Your wife is a completely developed equal who has already been through child rearing, and is supposed to be your partner. Your mate. You may know a little better than your wife, and you may not.

A child has not yet developed, and is not your equal. Not saying that he is less than a human, but as far as general mentality goes, he knows far less. He needs discipline in order to develop properly.

Now your question is ridiculous. You could use it for any form discipline. You send your kids for timeouts, so why don't you send your wife on a timeout? Why don't you tell your wife to sit in a corner? For the same reason that you don't do these things is why you wouldn't hit your wife.

From a Christian standpoint, I have another reason.



The Bible says that to become married, two become as one in body and spirit.

Would you hit yourself? No, of course not. So why would would you hit your wife if your both one?

Would you scream at yourself, and mentally abuse yourself? Of course not. So why would you mentally abuse your wife?

The list of differences could really go on, and on, and on. Honestly, it's two completely different scenarios!

The bottom line is that it is physical punishment to a human being. You argue that the bible says (not really an argument, but I'll humor you.) that the man and wife become one when married. You're children are much closer related to you than your wife, you are closer to being "one" with them than anyone else aside from your brothers, sisters, and parents.

All jokes aside, Sean Connery has a point about hitting women (if you watched the video he and his wife were happily married for 32 years at the time)...Of course you can't put them in a time out, or control them in the way you can control a child (that too requires some form of physical dominance/intimidation). Adults should be able to be reasoned with, this is expected when interacting with other adults. Now, I'm not advocating domestic abuse at all, but Sean Connery has a good point. Personally, I wouldn't ever hit a woman, I'd rather smash objects that cost money instead of costing me jail time.

Kids on the other hand, on occasion can not be reasoned with. You can send them for a time out, they can spend that time making shit-loads of noise, screaming, destroying their room..etc. A firm spanking is completely fine, it stings for about five minutes, gets a message across that would otherwise not be sent. Anything beyond a spanking is unacceptable.

Anyone who believes hitting their child is a method of good parenting is an idiot. Just FYI.

It is completely dependent on the situation, but would certainly never involve bringing physical harm to my child. Only a barbaric idiot would rationalize that that is an appropriate punishment for a CHILD.

I disagree. Like I said before, a firm spanking on the butt doesn't really cause any harm, it's not barbaric at all, it's a last ditch effort to get your child in line. Barbaric is bonding your child to something, hitting him with a clenched fist, causing extreme mental pain and anguish (making him feel like a piece of shit, etc). A spanking isn't even close to what I'd consider barbaric.

Notice how Noogah seems to be in the mindset of, "My way is the only way." There are scads of different ways you could handle your children, and spanking is really quite far down the totem pole.

Exactly. It should only be a last option. You should attempt to reason with your child, send him to a timeout, take privileges away etc, things that will help him develop reasoning skills, behavioral, and compromising skills. If nothing works you show them that there is a line they have crossed and this is what happens.

People that classify a spanking as "barbaric" live extremely sheltered lives, probably in some rich suburb where they got candy if they behaved and stfu instead of just acting civilized in the first place.

Look! I can generalize too!! LOLZ

THIS

Noogah agreeing with me...I must be doing something wrong. = \

Spanking a child (as in: not full force assault; just enough to make a point and never in anger) isn't exactly wrong.

Spanking your wife is ... not ... wrong or assault ... per se....

Originally Posted by Vampyre

Spanking your wife is ... not ... wrong or assault ... per se....

Bow chicka bow wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyre
Spanking your wife is ... not ... wrong or assault ... per se....

Bow chicka bow wow.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa