Poll: Parents need to get paddled too.

[LetalisK]

With the exception of Chinese-American immigrants. Theoretically, they utilize it in such a way so that these issues are avoided, but their general brand of parenting tends to cause other issues anyway.

tiger parenting you mean?

I get the feeling the media likes to jump on that bandwagon to make us whiteys feel insecure as in "asian people are better than you! their children are smarter! your children are dumb lazy fatasses!" [small/]slight racial overtones[/small] at least thats the impression I get

I dont think "high preasure" type parenting should be condoned

More or less, yeah.[footnote]Though I suspect Chua put her one little personal twist on it.[/footnote] There's a reason the professor who came up with it got absolutely eviscerated by her peers[footnote]And by peers I mean child and developmental psychologists that actually know what the fuck they're talking about, not other lawyers[/footnote]. It's just a slightly different take on authoritarian parenting that leads to most of the same drawbacks: depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, etc. But spanking isn't as bad. : /

Another edit: Spanking actually works. Briefly, as it changes the child's action in the moment, but not their overall behavior. It's not a very efficient tool for lasting change.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Yes, but if you think spanking or other form of physical punishment is the only way of negative reinforcement, you lack imagination.

There are other ways but the physical nature of a spanking helps any potential lesson to stick better than most. Since the goal of negative reinforcement is to instill fear an effective negative reinforcement needs to be something a person will go out to their way to avoid. The options of negative reinforcement that fit this description are few. Public humiliation is another example of a highly effective negative reinforcement strategy.

There are others still but they tend to be less effective as they lack any deterrence factor.

 

[Gothproxy]

You know what....it doesn't matter. Go find your own "substance". I've got to write all this down for my paper. But thanks, you did make it interesting.

Write down a rant as your paper? I'm sure that'll go over... well.

Nah, not the rant, that was just for fun. The poll was really for the little assignment in ethics class. Not really a scientific research paper (else I would have chosen a different venue to ask instead of a video game site), just an example about "random sampling" in terms for sociological stuff. Where else better to get a random sampling of people than a video game forum? Where we all know, everyone has an opinion (no matter how screwed up they may be) =D

 

[Lieju]

Yes, but if you think spanking or other form of physical punishment is the only way of negative reinforcement, you lack imagination.

There are other ways but the physical nature of a spanking helps any potential lesson to stick better than most. Since the goal of negative reinforcement is to instill fear an effective negative reinforcement needs to be something a person will go out to their way to avoid. The options of negative reinforcement that fit this description are few. Public humiliation is another example of a highly effective negative reinforcement strategy.

There are others still but they tend to be less effective as they lack any deterrence factor.

Or, you know, Make the child understand that their actions have consequences.
If I was late for dinner or didn't want to eat my dinner, my mom would simply let my dinner get cold, or let me go hungry if I didn't eat.
Or she would explain me why I needed to obey. She always made it clear that if I had a good enough reason and could make a good enough argument, I would get my way.

Do you really want to make your child fear you? Doesn't sound healthy to me.
I'd rather have the respect of any children I might someday have.

Besides, I've trained cats, a dog and a ferret, and never have had to use physical punishments with them (or the kids of relatives). So why would it be necessary with a human child?

As for public humiliation, I experienced plenty of that in school.
Can't say it had a positive effect on me; it has led me being unable to lead a normal life due to the panic attacks I get on public places.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Or, you know, Make the child understand that their actions have consequences.

That doesn't work as a general solution. If that were the case, children would not often do things that obviously have a long term negative consequence.

Do you really want to make your child fear you? Doesn't sound healthy to me.

Respect is simply fear directed to a noble end.

I'd rather have the respect of any children I might someday have.

No, what you want is obedience. Respect is a means to that end.

Besides, I've trained cats, a dog and a ferret, and never have had to use physical punishments with them (or the kids of relatives). So why would it be necessary with a human child?

Spraying a cat with a water bottle, swatting a dog with a newspaper and the like are all corporal punishments commonly used to train the animals. Beyond that you have choke chains, shock collars and the like.

As for public humiliation, I experienced plenty of that in school.
Can't say it had a positive effect on me; it has led me being unable to lead a normal life due to the panic attacks I get on public places.

Public humiliation is a strong deterrent. Brief physical discomfort is less so. The former seems more humane on paper of course but the latter is honestly less cruel.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I think as a society we shouldn't teach violence in ways such as that.
I was spanked a few times as a kid, and I turned out okay, but I would never do something like that to my children.
We're teaching murder, not understanding, is my point. (That's a bit of an overstatement, but it's a song lyric.)
Now, should things be punished? Yes. With violence? No. I personally believe it desencitizes children. "My parents do it to me, so why should I not hurt you?"
We're supposed to be examples, good ones.
Is violence even used in a practical job enviornement? in a University? No. It's not stood for there, so why should we stand for it in a place that's supposed to be safe?

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Do you really want to make your child fear you? Doesn't sound healthy to me.

Respect is simply fear directed to a noble end.

How so? I respect Napoleon Bonaparte, not because I'm affraid of him. He's been dead 100+ years, but because his actions made a mark on the world.
I respect people who are dissentful of the common way to prove something to the world. (IE, womens rights, racial intergration, ect.) Not because I fear people who hold signs and march on capital hill, but because their actions proved something. Respect, in my mind, is gained through attempt and accomplishment, not held at gunpoint.
Respect gained out of fear is not respect, that is fear- Fear is simply fear, and fear is weak, as it can be overcome.

 

[renegade7]

Hold up a second. It was a beating or suspension? What the hell, hold her grades over her head unless she lets someone paddle her?

That's way worse than the actual paddling, if you ask me. "You can fall behind in class, but if you let an adult man bend you over his knee and paddle you you can go right back to class."

Sounds like porno material to me.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Lemme give you an objective, intelligent answer to your rant.

Honestly, I would love to do this. Lord knows my parents should probably be flogged for some of their dumbass shit. However, consider the folks of the previous generation. They probably WERE spanked as kids. And ya know what? It didn't seem to do any good, because there is still this shit going on. Spanking 'em now when they also have these egos and attitudes may be even less effective. I'm not saying it wouldn't be satisfying. I'm saying they would ignore the message out of spite, because they're idiots.

I wish you good luck in your endeavours, though.

 

[lunavixen]

I'm for punishment within reason, and the punishment has to be appropriate for what the child has done. I'm okay with smacking as long as control is maintained and there is no damage to the child, just enough punishment to let the child know that what they've done is wrong and smacking should go with an explanation so the child understands WHY what they did was wrong. I don't agree with smacking children with objects like belts or with closed fists, an open palm against the backside or the hand is fine as long as the force used is reasonable. As children age, punishments should change accordingly.

For the record, I was smacked and turned out fine.

 

[Erttheking]

"Smacks face" really this thread does show how when two people get into an argument on the internet, you realize that it's kinda pointless.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

You assume that children find it obvious and would actually understand the concept on their own. I think that's a pretty ridiculous assumption.

A great many actions have obvious consequences even to a child. Playing with fire can result in destruction. Sex without protection can lead to disease and pregnancy. Playing in the road can result in getting hit by a car. Taking drugs can lead one down a path of self destruction. There are countless examples.

Yet, somehow, in spite of risk obvious to children, these are common activities that they partake in. The reason is simple enough: the risk, the consequence in such cases is theoretical. The purpose of corporal punishment is to present a non-theoretical consequence that they can keep in mind - something that minor groundings, stern talking to's and the like simply can't manage as effectively.

A lie, as someone else pointed out.

Fear is an emotional response that can, in a social context, is a key mechanism for controlling undesired action. If you undertake an action because of respect for another person, the underlying reason is fear. Not that the person will beat you or harm you; a more metaphysical fear (failing to live up to a public ideal, loss of mutual respect, shame, etc).

Respect is all well and good but the control mechanism inherent remains fear.

And, in the context of Napolean as someone else pointed out - it is perfectly fine to respect the man; however, since he's dead he gives few orders and sets few boundaries.

Yet another lie, why would you know what Lieju actually wants?

Respect is a means to an end; it is nothing more than a form of power. Unless you want to make the nihililst assertion that power itself is the end, I'd expect the reason you want children to respect you is so that they obey you.

You make assumptions based off of the bizarre things in your own head that have no relation to reality.

And you fling the word lie around without any idea what it means. When you disagree with my assertion, the correct response is to to shout that I'm lying. That is a rhetorical fallacy in this case as we are not dealing with a situation where there is objective truth to be found; as such, I am incapable of telling a lie.

I think you need to actually read what you're replying to. Someone managed to do it without those things and asked if they could manage to train them without physical punishment, why couldn't it work on kids?

I never asserted an impossibility of training without physical punishment. I asserted that training is more effective with both positive and negative reinforcement, an assertion you'd be hard pressed to overturn. The part of my argument you are taking issue with is my assertion that physical punishment is useful.

It looks like you're pretty scarily insistent on holding on to your views regardless of what others say.

I've not been given a compelling argument to the contrary. Any argument I've received has been from a place of emotion, rife with fallacy and utterly reliant on flimsy assertions about possibility otherwise. Being handed an impressive army of straw men isn't likely to sway anyone. Except perhaps crows.

I mean Lieju points out managing to not do it

This is fun.

and you give some worthless garbage about how other people commonly do it,

Do you see why? My assertion is worthless garbage and yet an equally compelling point that supports your view is not.

as if that's supposed to prove something when their only point was it wasn't necessary.

Let's play a little game where we find precisely what I've said. The beauty of a forum is that it helpfully records such things so we can refer to them later. Here are the things you guys have replied to that I've said:

Or, to put it another way, a carrot is not terribly effective without a stick. Or more blandly, any training is more efficient if you use both positive and negative reinforcement rather than simply one or the other.

There are other ways but the physical nature of a spanking helps any potential lesson to stick better than most. Since the goal of negative reinforcement is to instill fear an effective negative reinforcement needs to be something a person will go out to their way to avoid. The options of negative reinforcement that fit this description are few. Public humiliation is another example of a highly effective negative reinforcement strategy.

There are others still but they tend to be less effective as they lack any deterrence factor.

Respect is simply fear directed to a noble end.

Strange that I don't see the word "necessary" used once. The language I used indicated my position was that physical punishment is a useful tool.

Or do you not know what the word 'necessary' means?

I do. That's why I didn't use that word nor any synonym in my argument except for my riposte.

 

[corvuscorrax]

This topic interests me.

Do the ppl who say that parents who use any form of physical punishment are barbarians have any experience being spanked/beat/smacked? Can you honestly say it mentally scarred you? If so I must say you have a weak mental constitution.

 

[Lieju]

Or, you know, Make the child understand that their actions have consequences.

That doesn't work as a general solution. If that were the case, children would not often do things that obviously have a long term negative consequence.

Well, duh. That's why you need to teach them. Of course if you leave them on their own they are going to do stupid shit. That's why kids need parents.

Do you really want to make your child fear you? Doesn't sound healthy to me.

Respect is simply fear directed to a noble end.

I'd rather have the respect of any children I might someday have.

No, what you want is obedience. Respect is a means to that end.

There was a boy at school who used to beat me for reasons such as looking at him funny. I feared and hated him, and thought he was scum. My mother I respect, because she is intelligent, patient and would give me reasons for her actions.
I had zero respect for teachers who didn't know their stuff and who yelled at me. I would have only despised them more if they also used violence.

Would you respect a dictator who ruled you with an iron fist? Would you respect a government that used fear to control you? Aren't you raising your child to accept such a state of affairs?

I have seen religious violence, both mental and physical, and people using fear to ends they believed was righteous (such as beating the gay out of their kids).
Such people scare me, but it doesn't follow I respect them. Quite the opposite.

I wouldn't want blind obedience from my kids. After all, they aren't going to be kids forever, finally they need to grow up and figure out their own way. And what if they're right about something, and I'm wrong?

Besides, I've trained cats, a dog and a ferret, and never have had to use physical punishments with them (or the kids of relatives). So why would it be necessary with a human child?

Spraying a cat with a water bottle, swatting a dog with a newspaper and the like are all corporal punishments commonly used to train the animals. Beyond that you have choke chains, shock collars and the like.
[/quote]
Spraying a cat with a water bottle is hardly painful (and with mine that never worked, because they only got really wild and thought it was a funny game).
And I've never used hitting with a newspaper either. I have used shaking a newspaper to make a noise the animal didn't like, though.
But I'd never use anything that causes unnecessary pain.
Some discomfort, maybe, to avoid bigger discomfort.

For example, holding the animal even if it tries to wiggle free, because you want to train it to sit still when you're holding it, and if you let it go when it wiggles, it learns to do that when it wants to leave.

And obviously it's necessary to be able to hold it still.

I have dealt with animals that have been afraid of me, and dealing with animals like that is a problem.
My ferret, when I first got her was like that, and she'd jump at me screaming and bite down and not let go, and hiss at me if I approached her when she was in her nest.
Now though she is sweet and friendly and only nips playfully to get my attention, in a way that doesn't use teeth, and she can be handled easily.

A friend of mine has adopted problem-dogs, and those dogs are, or have been, afraid of people because their previous owners have had no idea how to train them.
They can still be problematic, but she has worked to rid them of their fear.

The other one still can't be trusted near children, though, because she is afraid of them, and might get agressive because of that.

Fear is an emotional response that can, in a social context, is a key mechanism for controlling undesired action. If you undertake an action because of respect for another person, the underlying reason is fear. Not that the person will beat you or harm you; a more metaphysical fear (failing to live up to a public ideal, loss of mutual respect, shame, etc).

Respect is all well and good but the control mechanism inherent remains fear.

Or, you know, you want to please the person you respect, or want to be like them. Or recognise they know better than you what they're doing and it's in your own interest to follow them.
For example, I respect my friend's knowledge on computer programming, and if he told me to do something to my computer I'd listen to him.

And even if fear was the underlying factor (and depending on your definition, fear can be good for you, if you're afraid of failure or things that can really harm you), you're admitting that you can achieve respect without the threat of beating/harm.

 

[Aerodyamic]

regardless of the fact that it is proven that corporal punishment lowers a child's IQ.

Have something to cite as evidence that supports your argument? Go ahead, I'm sure there's a TON of studies that will back you, right?

Right?

 

[Kae]

This topic interests me.

Do the ppl who say that parents who use any form of physical punishment are barbarians have any experience being spanked/beat/smacked? Can you honestly say it mentally scarred you? If so I must say you have a weak mental constitution.

Well I kinda don't have a set stance on the issue, but I can tell you that as a result of that I can't cry anymore, I still feel like I want to cry but I can't do it and then it turns into really bad headaches and sometime punching people or hitting my head against the wall out of frustration, but that probably has more to do with the fact that I wasn't allowed to cry, you know because men don't cry and stuff.

I can assure that I wouldn't want to do it, but I do tend to rely on violence to solve problems, one of the reasons I don't want to have children, I don't want to hit them or anything like that.