another try at spanking poll

[Dreamweaver]

Well, how can the government enforce it? Most kids get spankings in the privacy of their own homes. There are of course, different degrees of spankings. Some parents use belts and other items and really welt up and bruise thier children. :angry: I was spanked as a child, but not too hard. It basically was to show me who was in charge if I were to get lippy with my parents. I've also turned out pretty normal.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Jun 14 2005, 05:54 PM']Well, how can the government enforce it? Most kids get spankings in the privacy of their own homes. There are of course, different degrees of spankings. Some parents use belts and other items and really welt up and bruise thier children.  :angry: I was spanked as a child, but not too hard. It basically was to show me who was in charge if I were to get lippy with my parents. I've also turned out pretty normal.
[right][snapback]611645[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Haven't you read 1984? THe kids report the parents and social services comes and takes the kids away and puts the parents in jail.


Don John,

Okay, yes washing the mouth out with soap is fine. The law listed "Tabasco sauce". What's the point? To specifically inflict a greater degree of pain on a child? Any punishment should be to inflict enough pain that it is noticable and corrects the child, but not to inflict any greater pain than that. Tabasco, electric shocks, manipulating body parts. That will scar and tramatize a child. They won't see the parent as a loving authority but a fearful dictator. Never hit your child out of anger.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 14 2005, 05:35 PM']Haven't you read 1984? THe kids report the parents and social services comes and takes the kids away and puts the parents in jail.
Don John,

Okay, yes washing the mouth out with soap is fine. The law listed "Tabasco sauce". What's the point? To specifically inflict a greater degree of pain on a child? Any punishment should be to inflict enough pain that it is noticable and corrects the child, but not to inflict any greater pain than that. Tabasco, electric shocks, manipulating body parts. That will scar and tramatize a child. They won't see the parent as a loving authority but a fearful dictator. Never hit your child out of anger.
[right][snapback]611683[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I cannot help but remember what I concider the most important lesson I ever learned from mmy fourth grade teacher( and I learned alot from her a whole lot) I wasn't suppose to her it it was adressed to a young teacher who was asking her about classroom disipline " The pain of the punishment must be greater than the pleasure the student gets from persevering in the behavior". It has helped me as a parent, and it has helped me as a teacher. It is a crucial thing and the government does not have the right to restrict parents use of corparl punishment, whatever you or I or anyone thinks of a punishment if it leaves no permenant physical damage it is none of the Governments concern. As for phsycological damage well I would contend that is far eisier to do with words than with fist.


And by the way the law specifically bans the use of soap in the mouth, notthat I think tabasco is a very serious thing, sounds like a tasty punishment to me ( of course I like tabasco)

[Brother Adam]

So you see no problem with lasting emotional trama? You see no problem with electrocuting a child? Shaking him/her? (which can cause death) or other cruel and unusual punishments? Just so long as it outwieghs the 'pleasure of what they did wrong'? Give me a break. There is a reason the behind has extra padding.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Don John of Austria']I completly agree. But I do spank my son, other methods do not work on him, and at 2 I can't reason with him about why he can't run in the street, he knows if he runs in the street he gets spanked so he doesn't run in the street, All it taakes is him not obeying that rule once at the wrong time and he is dead, or perhaps simply smashed and cripled I have no qaulms at all about spanking.[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I think. I was never, not once, spanked as a child -- and yet I didn't run out in the street, nor did I disobey very often. When I did, I was punished, but not corporally; it seems to have worked relatively well on me. Thus, if I were ever to be a parent, I doubt very much that I would use any form of corporal punishment on my child.

With that said, I support the right of parents to choose to use corporal punishment that has no lasting detrimental effect. Thus, even though I don't necessarily agree with it is a form of punishment, I do support your right to decide whether or not you need to spank your child. I believe that this right is fundamental to the rights of the family and cannot be infringed upon.

[quote name='Brother Adam']So you see no problem with lasting emotional trama? You see no problem with electrocuting a child? Shaking him/her? (which can cause death) or other cruel and unusual punishments? Just so long as it outwieghs the 'pleasure of what they did wrong'? Give me a break. There is a reason the behind has extra padding.[/quote]

I don't think that's quite accurate. What Don John said is that if it leaves no physical damage, it's none of the government's concern. I don't think he would support electrocution, shaking, or "other crual and unusual punishments" -- although the two of you may well disagree on what constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. I think what he's saying is that if there is no lasting physical effect, there is no reason for the government to interfere here, and I would tend to agree -- although I would take the psychological effect a bit more seriously than he seems to be taking it.

The reason I would take the psychological effect more seriously than he takes it is because of my grandfather. I'm going to speak very candidly here, because this is something I care very much about. I do believe that a parent has a right to corporal punishment, but I believe that it can be taken too far and that it can leave a lasting emotional effect that will haunt a person and that person's spouse and family for many years. My grandfather is a good example. As a boy, my grandfather was beaten, very often rather severely, by my great-grandfather. He also watched my great-grandfather beat my great-grandmother. One might say it was only natural that when my grandfather married, he beat his wife too -- my grandmother. He did it for many years; and they were brutal beatings, and the violence was not always just confined to beatings. It was no small miracle that this violence didn't also translate into violence against his children; for whatever reason, he never laid a hand on my mother or her older siblings.

I do believe that my great-grandfather's excessive violence, protected by a society that looked too leniently upon "corporal punishment," contributed to my grandfather's own history of domestic violence. This skeleton in our closet, which I did not even know about until I was a teenager, has torn my family apart. In the end, as he aged, my grandfather stopped the violence and ultimately he was a good man. But his sins in the past, likely contributed to by his father's sins, cause unspeakable pain in our family to this day. Both my grandmother and grandfather have passed, but the effects of my grandfather's domestic violence still leave a very visible mark on their children; and they have left a mark on me.

So, while I do believe that parents have a right to corporal punishment, I think there are legitimate limitations upon this right. And I don't think that spouses ever have the right to domestic violence with one another.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 14 2005, 07:29 PM']So you see no problem with lasting emotional trama? You see no problem with electrocuting a child? Shaking him/her? (which can cause death) or other cruel and unusual punishments? Just so long as it outwieghs the 'pleasure of what they did wrong'? Give me a break. There is a reason the behind has extra padding.
[right][snapback]611777[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No I think emotional trauma is not a good thing, I don't think that Tabasco is going to cause emotional trauma, but I don't think thatthe vast majority of people before the "great" Dr. Spock ( who suffered quite extreme punishment by modern standards) where " emotionally tramatized". Electrocuting a child --well electrocution is a fatal discharge of electricity so obviously electrocution is wrong but I don't see a moral differance between an electric shock and a swat on the butt, actually the pain of an electric shock is much more fleeting. While twisting the arm of a 2 year old might truly injure them the same is not true for a 10 year old. Cruel and unusual punishments--Please are you serious, the reason punishment is effective is precisly because it is unusual. What kind of person would make a punishment " normal". Cruel is a very loaded word, if a punishment is administered with Cruelty as the intent then it is not punishment at all but sadism, agian I oppose that, but what you concider cruel and what I concider cruel is probably not the same. And since you brought it up the behind is not really the best place to spank, the back of the legs is much safer, and as an aside it hurts more. also a flexable object like a belt or a switch is much less likely to deliver enough force to actually injure the child. As I said I am not discussing things which leave permenant physical damage, but simply those things which hurt. Of corse I am a Catholic and see suffering as redemptive, I realize that puts me inthe minority even here.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jun 14 2005, 08:34 PM']I don't think that's quite accurate.  What Don John said is that if it leaves no physical damage, it's none of the government's concern.  I don't think he would support electrocution, shaking, or "other crual and unusual punishments" -- although the two of you may well disagree on what constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment.  I think what he's saying is that if there is no lasting physical effect, there is no reason for the government to interfere here, and I would tend to agree -- although I would take the psychological effect a bit more seriously than he seems to be taking it.

The reason I would take the psychological effect more seriously than he takes it is because of my grandfather.  I'm going to speak very candidly here, because this is something I care very much about.  I do believe that a parent has a right to corporal punishment, but I believe that it can be taken too far and that it can leave a lasting emotional effect that will haunt a person and that person's spouse and family for many years.  My grandfather is a good example.  As a boy, my grandfather was beaten, very often rather severely, by my great-grandfather.  He also watched my great-grandfather beat my great-grandmother.  One might say it was only natural that when my grandfather married, he beat his wife too -- my grandmother.  He did it for many years; and they were brutal beatings, and the violence was not always just confined to beatings.  It was no small miracle that this violence didn't also translate into violence against his children; for whatever reason, he never laid a hand on my mother or her older siblings.

I do believe that my great-grandfather's excessive violence, protected by a society that looked too leniently upon "corporal punishment," contributed to my grandfather's own history of domestic violence.  This skeleton in our closet, which I did not even know about until I was a teenager, has torn my family apart.  In the end, as he aged, my grandfather stopped the violence and ultimately he was a good man.  But his sins in the past, likely contributed to by his father's sins, cause unspeakable pain in our family to this day.  Both my grandmother and grandfather have passed, but the effects of my grandfather's domestic violence still leave a very visible mark on their children; and they have left a mark on me.

So, while I do believe that parents have a right to corporal punishment, I think there are legitimate limitations upon this right.  And I don't think that spouses ever have the right to domestic violence with one another.
[right][snapback]611828[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What you are talking about is abuse, and obviously I do not condone it, My father was abused by his father who was abused by his father, ( the sins of the Father live on after him even unto the fourth generation) My father did not abuse me, nor did he abuse my sister dispite the fact that she had serious emotion problems and was quite violent. Buyt he spanked me, and he spanked her, and niether of us grew up to be anything remotely resembling abusive either to our spouses or to our children. What must be distinguished is corpral punishment ( which has no limits) and abuse which has absolute limits ( honestly we are all abusive to others on some level)

Now as for the fact that you were not spanked well it may have not be necessary for you, it was in fact counter productive for me at a young age and very effective at an older age( when the loss of control really hit home) but it was needed for my sister and tremendously effective for her. One must find the punishment which is effective to that Child, something which delivers more pain than the pleasure he gets from persistingin the behavior, with some children this can be done with time outs or harsh words ( I don't mean insults I am more speaking of tone of voice) others must be locked inthere room ( this was the only punishment which was effective on me as a young child, and was recomended by my pediatrician but that is not effective with all children and the State doesn't have the right to restrict the ability of parents to use what ever means they find appropriate to disapline and punish their child. Abuse is a completly differant manner and is already addressed by the Laws of every State.

I am Glad texas passed a Law this year specificly declaring that spanking was not abuse.

[Donna]

Everyone here is the same as before. lol.

Same as they ever was
Same as they ever was.

[Ste]

I think its outrageous that the Government thinks it has the authority to ban spanking. If I were married and had kids, I'd spank my kids regardless of the law. They have no right to ban it. Punishing children is hardly child abuse. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's child abuse NOT to spank kids.

[homeschoolmom]

I always enjoy a good "this is the best way to discipline children" debate among those who have 'em and those who don't...

[PedroX]

The strange thing to me is that most of the actions described in the proposed law are indeed already against the law. Most of the actions would warrant a finding of child abuse in Indiana given the right context. All they are trying to do is add spanking to the list. What this list is really about is a further encroachment of the "nanny-state". Sure, it sounds good, but the potential for disaster is there.

same as I ever was.

peace...

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Jun 15 2005, 09:56 AM']I always enjoy a good "this is the best way to discipline children" debate among those who have 'em and those who don't...
[right][snapback]612172[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

haha No kidding....

I have to say, though, I am finding myself pretty much in total agreement with Don. Spanking kept me in line and probably did me a world of good. We spank Adrienne when needed. Other punishments don't work; standing in the corner, staying in her room or bed, for example. She's 22 months old, it just doesn't work. Some kids never need spanking and thats great for them and their parents, other methods (such as those I listed that don't work with Adrienne) work better than spanks.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS']I have to say, though, I am finding myself pretty much in total agreement with Don. Spanking kept me in line and probably did me a world of good. We spank Adrienne when needed. Other punishments don't work; standing in the corner, staying in her room or bed, for example. She's 22 months old, it just doesn't work. Some kids never need spanking and thats great for them and their parents, other methods (such as those I listed that don't work with Adrienne) work better than spanks.[/quote]
Well, like I said, I think all parents have the right to discipline their children as they see first -- and I certainly don't think spanking makes anyone bad parents. I'm not even ruling out the [i]possibility[/i] that I would spank my children if I ever have children (which is itself unlikely). What I'm saying is that I find it unlikely that I would spank my children because I was not spanked, and I turned out pretty much all right. But then again, you could all have a point about certain disciplines working on some children and not on others.

It would be difficult for me to debate the merits of spanking or other corporal punishment since I don't have any kids -- and I acknowledge that difficulty, and I respect that those of us on this thread who do have kids can speak more authoritatively about this than I can.

But my point so far in this thread has been that while I don't personally favor spanking, I think parents have a right to it, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I think the state of Massachusetts has gone insane. So I think we're all in agreement on that point! And isn't that nice?

[IcePrincessKRS]

I see where you're coming from GF, and I certainly don't disagree. It just irks me when I hear people blathering on about spanking being abusive and immoral (which after a point it can be but not ALL spanking is). When I typed that post I was specifically thinking of the difference between Adrienne and her cousin (my sister's daughter, who is about 3 months older than A.) As I said, spanking is the punishment of choice with Adrienne because other things do not work. With my niece spanking doesn't work so her parents have her stand in the corner for a short period of time as punishment and that does the trick.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jun 15 2005, 03:17 PM'][quote name='IcePrincessKRS']I have to say, though, I am finding myself pretty much in total agreement with Don. Spanking kept me in line and probably did me a world of good. We spank Adrienne when needed. Other punishments don't work; standing in the corner, staying in her room or bed, for example. She's 22 months old, it just doesn't work. Some kids never need spanking and thats great for them and their parents, other methods (such as those I listed that don't work with Adrienne) work better than spanks.[/quote]
Well, like I said, I think all parents have the right to discipline their children as they see first -- and I certainly don't think spanking makes anyone bad parents. I'm not even ruling out the [i]possibility[/i] that I would spank my children if I ever have children (which is itself unlikely). What I'm saying is that I find it unlikely that I would spank my children because I was not spanked, and I turned out pretty much all right. But then again, you could all have a point about certain disciplines working on some children and not on others.

It would be difficult for me to debate the merits of spanking or other corporal punishment since I don't have any kids -- and I acknowledge that difficulty, and I respect that those of us on this thread who do have kids can speak more authoritatively about this than I can.

But my point so far in this thread has been that while I don't personally favor spanking, I think parents have a right to it, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I think the state of Massachusetts has gone insane. So I think we're all in agreement on that point! And isn't that nice?
[right][snapback]612521[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Ahh agian agreement.