Poll: Is it ok for parents to spank their kids?

[b3nn3tt]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

Actually not really as long as you make sure the child knows why they got hit they probably won't get violent. Plus if they do hit another child then the parent can hit them for doing that. Its all little hypocritical to do that but they'll learn they're lesson and that's whats important. At times kids can be out of control sometimes and explaining to them won't work unless they're willing listen but give them a nice little spank and they will probably be more willing to listen to why you did that.

See, I would hugely disagree with hitting a child as punishment for hitting another child.

'Violence is wrong, you have to learn that, so I'm going to hit you'

That is such a conflicting message for a child. If they're not willing to listen, then you simply punish them anyway, but in a non-violent way, such as taking away a toy or grounding them, then when they complain about it you explain to them why it is that they're being punished.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

If you mean spanking as a form of discipline, then absolutely. If you mean spanking for the hell of it or any other reason then no.

 

[Dethenger]

I would discipline a child the same way I would discipline a dog, because I view them relatively the same way (no, I don't intend on having children). If he fucks up, give him a smack. There's a difference between discipline and abuse.

 

[DEAD34345]

When a parent smacks their child, the child does not learn that what they are doing is wrong. Instead, they learn that what they are doing results in being smacked. Sure, they will stop doing whatever it was that they were doing, but only while the fear of being smacked is still present. If the parent isn't around, or even if they become and adult and move away from their parent, all that fear vanishes and suddenly there is nothing stopping them from doing what they want.

In my opinion, the only real way to raise children is to teach them why they shouldn't do something. Give them morals, a sense of right and wrong, and some empathy and you will never need to smack them. Even better, these will stick with them whether you are around or not.

I would discipline a child the same way I would discipline a dog, because I view them relatively the same way (no, I don't intend on having children). If he fucks up, give him a smack. There's a difference between discipline and abuse.

Indeed there is a difference. Discipline does not require physical harm (and yes, I do have a well behaved dog I've never smacked).

 

[iDoom46]

So long as its just spanking and it's used sparingly as a disciplinary tool for really bad behavior.

My parents practiced this when they raised me and I turned out fine.

My sister, on the other hand, didn't and has grown up to be a disrespectful, unapoligetic, nasty, spoiled brat who thinks she's the princess of everything and everyone should bow down to her and smell her lovely, fragrant, golden shit.

 

[yman15]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

Actually not really as long as you make sure the child knows why they got hit they probably won't get violent. Plus if they do hit another child then the parent can hit them for doing that. Its all little hypocritical to do that but they'll learn they're lesson and that's whats important. At times kids can be out of control sometimes and explaining to them won't work unless they're willing listen but give them a nice little spank and they will probably be more willing to listen to why you did that.

See, I would hugely disagree with hitting a child as punishment for hitting another child.

'Violence is wrong, you have to learn that, so I'm going to hit you'

That is such a conflicting message for a child. If they're not willing to listen, then you simply punish them anyway, but in a non-violent way, such as taking away a toy or grounding them, then when they complain about it you explain to them why it is that they're being punished.

Well that's if your doing that to an older child like 10+. Lets use for example a 5 year old . Instead of the child thinking of it like that they'll be thinking wow that really thinking 'owie that hurt I won't do that again i don't wanna be a meanie.' Also we have to be realistic kids are not that smart and generally will look up to they're parents and will accept that the only reason they got hit was because they did something wrong. Actions speak louder than words and they won't care if what they did was wrong if all you give them is a stern talking too

 

[Dethenger]

I would discipline a child the same way I would discipline a dog, because I view them relatively the same way (no, I don't intend on having children). If he fucks up, give him a smack. There's a difference between discipline and abuse.

Indeed there is a difference. Discipline does not require physical harm (and yes, I do have a well behaved dog I've never smacked).

Fair enough.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

My parents beat my behind when I was young, and my attitude changed instantly.

Although, I'm not bringing it into my household. I find it just a bit too harsh. I'm gentle natured.

 

[b3nn3tt]

See, I would hugely disagree with hitting a child as punishment for hitting another child.

'Violence is wrong, you have to learn that, so I'm going to hit you'

That is such a conflicting message for a child. If they're not willing to listen, then you simply punish them anyway, but in a non-violent way, such as taking away a toy or grounding them, then when they complain about it you explain to them why it is that they're being punished.

Well that's if your doing that to an older child like 10+. Lets use for example a 5 year old . Instead of the child thinking of it like that they'll be thinking wow that really thinking 'owie that hurt I won't do that again i don't wanna be a meanie.' Also we have to be realistic kids are not that smart and generally will look up to they're parents and will accept that the only reason they got hit was because they did something wrong. Actions speak louder than words and they won't care if what they did was wrong if all you give them is a stern talking too

But you can still punish a child without having to smack them. For example, if this five year old is playing with other kids and hits one of them, by removing them from the group and making them sit by themselves, that's a punishment. They will still associate what they did with punishment, and you don't have to hit the kid.

 

[JoJo]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Research found above has shown that:

"As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals."

There are many non-violent alternates which are a little more inconvient for the parent but pay-off in the long run for the children's mental state.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

Or really any form of punishment involving physical pain.

Abuse is inexcusable but a good responsible whack over the back of the head when they are really crossing the line helps remind them that you mean business. Also some times kid's have to learn the hard way. My favorite lesson is if you hit someone they will hit you back or more simply "what you do to me comes right back at you".

 

[lacktheknack]

Spanking? Yes.

Beating? No.

WHY CAN NO ONE TELL THE DAMN DIFFERENCE?!

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Physical discipline? Well maybe a light clip around the ear but nothing actually painful. That seems lazy and cruel. My parents never really hit me, but my grandfather would when me and my sister where on holiday with them (which we were fairly often). Of course I'm not qualified to analyse any effects it might have had, but obedience out of fear isn't really obedience. Admittedly my grandfather was a dick anyway, but I wasn't close to him at all, it certainly had a lot to do with that.

 

[Cobelo]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

I can actually use myself to counter that argument. My parents spanked my arse when I was out of line as a child, and I'm a pacifist. I've never hit anyone out of anger since I was a child.

OT: Yeah, spanking your kids is a perfectly fine way to get them to fall in line. They'll realize that they won't want to do that again, and will start building something I think we don't have enough of anymore: A good set of morals.

Never. It's disgusting, animalistic and anyone who has to resort to such a cheap tactic is a bad parent

I'm gonna stop you right there and say that I'm personally offended that you say that since all my parents used that tactic, to great effect. The reason why i see it as better than most alternatives you can think of is that it's not only what i know works, it's that it's effective.

If you let your kids walk all over you like some parents do and just give them a 'stern talking to' like i've seen some parents try, nothing really happens. Yes, it sometimes works, but after about the fifth time you've talked to them about the same thing it stops working. After a while, talking doesn't work, grounding won't stop them and those parents have turned into a personal doormat. Not to say that some parents don't overuse and abuse this tactic, but going out of your way to avoid due punishment is only damaging to them.

 

[Radeonx]

I'm fine with spanking or even a little slap to the face as long as you don't kick the shit out of your kid. So yeah, as long as it doesn't get out of line.

 

[b3nn3tt]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

I can actually use myself to counter that argument. My parents spanked my arse when I was out of line as a child, and I'm a pacifist. I've never hit anyone out of anger since I was a child.

OT: Yeah, spanking your kids is a perfectly fine way to get them to fall in line. They'll realize that they won't want to do that again, and will start building something I think we don't have enough of anymore: A good set of morals.

So you're a pacifist, but you condone people hitting their children?

I'm not saying that hitting children will invariably fuck them up, but I do think that there are much better ways of teaching children right from wrong without having to strike them. There is no other teaching situation where hitting the student is a valid method of teaching.

 

[Cobelo]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

I can actually use myself to counter that argument. My parents spanked my arse when I was out of line as a child, and I'm a pacifist. I've never hit anyone out of anger since I was a child.

OT: Yeah, spanking your kids is a perfectly fine way to get them to fall in line. They'll realize that they won't want to do that again, and will start building something I think we don't have enough of anymore: A good set of morals.

So you're a pacifist, but you condone people hitting their children?

I'm not saying that hitting children will invariably fuck them up, but I do think that there are much better ways of teaching children right from wrong without having to strike them. There is no other teaching situation where hitting the student is a valid method of teaching.

I wonder why you have to use the word hitting. Hitting is not good discipline. However, not being able to sit down for an hour or so without it hurting is definitely a motivator not to do it again. There's a big difference between beating your kids and discipline, and when I see people who immediately go 'OHMYGOD YOU'RE A BRUTE' when i say for discipline's sake it's a good idea, it sets my blood boiling. Used sparingly it's just fine.

And I'm not saying that NOT hitting them will invariably fuck them up, either. There are times when a timeout or a talking to are perfectly fine methods. But it's when you want to make a lasting impression that a spanking is of good use at times. Someone said before, Pain is a great motivator NOT to do something. You remember when you were a kid and you reached for a hot stove, and your mom said, 'that's hot' just before you burned yourself? Well, it hurt, and now you'll never touch a hot stove again. See what i mean?

 

[b3nn3tt]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

I can actually use myself to counter that argument. My parents spanked my arse when I was out of line as a child, and I'm a pacifist. I've never hit anyone out of anger since I was a child.

OT: Yeah, spanking your kids is a perfectly fine way to get them to fall in line. They'll realize that they won't want to do that again, and will start building something I think we don't have enough of anymore: A good set of morals.

So you're a pacifist, but you condone people hitting their children?

I'm not saying that hitting children will invariably fuck them up, but I do think that there are much better ways of teaching children right from wrong without having to strike them. There is no other teaching situation where hitting the student is a valid method of teaching.

I wonder why you have to use the word hitting. Hitting is not good discipline. However, not being able to sit down for an hour or so without it hurting is definitely a motivator not to do it again. There's a big difference between beating your kids and discipline, and when I see people who immediately go 'OHMYGOD YOU'RE A BRUTE' when i say for discipline's sake it's a good idea, it sets my blood boiling. Used sparingly it's just fine.

And I'm not saying that NOT hitting them will invariably fuck them up, either. There are times when a timeout or a talking to are perfectly fine methods. But it's when you want to make a lasting impression that a spanking is of good use at times. Someone said before, Pain is a great motivator NOT to do something. You remember when you were a kid and you reached for a hot stove, and your mom said, 'that's hot' just before you burned yourself? Well, it hurt, and now you'll never touch a hot stove again. See what i mean?

hit Show IPA verb, hit, hit·ting, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to deal a blow or stroke to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hitting

Seems a perfectly valid word to use to describe what people do to their children. I am aware that there is a huge difference between smacking your child as described in thsi forum and beating them, but the fact remains that we are still discussing hitting children.

The big difference between the stove example and a parent smacking there child is that the stove is an accident, which a child discovers by themselves. To properly compare the two, it would be like the parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot.

My argument is that there should be no need to strike your child, there are plenty of methods that are equally as effective that don't involve parents hitting their children. To me, hitting children seems like a lazy way to discipline them.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

Yes. Why? It works. It worked on me and I harbor no resentment to my parents at all. I actually appreciate it in the face of kids today and some of the bullshit they get away with.

I'd like to point out that this guy is a bit of a tool. It does not always work, and anyone who says "Yes. Definitely. It works." without any explanation saying that it does not always work is an idiot.

I've got enough problems with people as it is, if my parents had hit me at all, I probably would've jumped out a window by now, because I've got horrible anxiety problems anyway. So anyone saying that hitting children is an effective way of punishment just because "it worked for them" clearly lacks empathy.

Spanking does work. Sometimes. In rare cases where the parent administering the punishment isn't being influenced by anything else at the time. This, however, is very rare. So no, "King of the Sandbox". You're wrong.

What? I don't even... ok, aside from out and out insulting me (which I've reported you for), you seem like the kind of kid that could have benefited from a little corporal punishment yourself.

 

[Merkavar]

i just think smacking kids is pointless. in my expirence when i was younger and did something wrong my mum would smack me either with her hand or with a wooden spoon, it would hurt but 2 mins later its all over, no lesson learned.

plus it was easy enough to dodge my mum so it would take a few attempts to get the smack.

i think grounding would be more effective, like no tv, computer, phone, facebook etc. as an adult when you do something wrong you arent smacked your jailed or fined. so why not treat kids the same way.