I cannot believe there are still people out there spanking their children...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why people defend hurting children. If your spouse hits you it's intimate partner violence. If another person hits it's assault. But somehow hitting children is okay.

I was spanked as a child. It taught me that hitting children was not okay. I remember seeing a mom spank her kid because he was hitting people at the playground. I guess she didn't connect the dots

The purpose of any punishment is to inflict some form of pain or unpleasantness, whether that is deprivation of something enjoyed like a toy, or deprivation of a privilege like watching a show, or it could be a mild sting to your bottom.

Whatever it is, it is an unpleasant consequence that has the intention of deterring a repeat of the same behavior. It normally accompanies instruction or teaching about what is acceptable to do instead.

Parents are allowed and often required to provide such consequences, and they have the legitimate authority as parents to implement them. Children do not have the authority over other people to implement any of these consequences.

It's an ineffective solution. You dispute the research like a conspiracy theorist dodges logic. So I get there's no arguing with someone who will only "move the goalposts" so to speak.

What’s your basis for saying it’s ineffective?

You don't know how to look up research? Cursory Google or Google scholar search or go on pubmed and just read abstracts if you can't get fulltext.

If you want to say all the research is bunk, that's your opinion, but has the hallmark of how a conspiracy theorist thinks. If you want to cherry pick one study or person you devoutly believe while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, that's also typical of a conspiracy theorist.

If there were controlled research, I’d consider it. But unscientific research is not reliable.

I have my own experience to know what’s effective.

Why spank when alternative repercussions and management solutions are effective and don't have the potential emotional or physically painful repercussion (and yes, I was spanked, I remember as far back as being spanked at 4 years old how I felt)?

I only need to threaten to take away a beloved toy for my kid to comply. But sure, maybe my kids are easy. But on the flipside, I have a family member who adopted a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome who acts out sometimes violently. Guess what? They don't spank either.

I am a nurse who has dealt with confused incapacitated patients, psych patients, drug withdrawal patients, violent patients. Hitting isn't ok in these circumstances even though we have to work with people without full capacity who don't have ability to reason. Should I be allowed to spank a patient if they won't take their medicine or refuse a bed bath or wound dressing change or sneak food they shouldn't eat?

By your logic posted earlier, that's fine? I can spank you on your butt or slap a ruler to your hand one day when you have Alzheimer's and are sundowning and refuse your meds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why people defend hurting children. If your spouse hits you it's intimate partner violence. If another person hits it's assault. But somehow hitting children is okay.

I was spanked as a child. It taught me that hitting children was not okay. I remember seeing a mom spank her kid because he was hitting people at the playground. I guess she didn't connect the dots

The purpose of any punishment is to inflict some form of pain or unpleasantness, whether that is deprivation of something enjoyed like a toy, or deprivation of a privilege like watching a show, or it could be a mild sting to your bottom.

Whatever it is, it is an unpleasant consequence that has the intention of deterring a repeat of the same behavior. It normally accompanies instruction or teaching about what is acceptable to do instead.

Parents are allowed and often required to provide such consequences, and they have the legitimate authority as parents to implement them. Children do not have the authority over other people to implement any of these consequences.

It's an ineffective solution. You dispute the research like a conspiracy theorist dodges logic. So I get there's no arguing with someone who will only "move the goalposts" so to speak.

What’s your basis for saying it’s ineffective?

You don't know how to look up research? Cursory Google or Google scholar search or go on pubmed and just read abstracts if you can't get fulltext.

If you want to say all the research is bunk, that's your opinion, but has the hallmark of how a conspiracy theorist thinks. If you want to cherry pick one study or person you devoutly believe while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, that's also typical of a conspiracy theorist.

If there were controlled research, I’d consider it. But unscientific research is not reliable.

I have my own experience to know what’s effective.

Why spank when alternative repercussions and management solutions are effective and don't have the potential emotional or physically painful repercussion (and yes, I was spanked, I remember as far back as being spanked at 4 years old how I felt)?

I only need to threaten to take away a beloved toy for my kid to comply. But sure, maybe my kids are easy. But on the flipside, I have a family member who adopted a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome who acts out sometimes violently. Guess what? They don't spank either.

I am a nurse who has dealt with confused incapacitated patients, psych patients, drug withdrawal patients, violent patients. Hitting isn't ok in these circumstances even though we have to work with people without full capacity who don't have ability to reason. Should I be allowed to spank a patient if they won't take their medicine or refuse a bed bath or wound dressing change or sneak food they shouldn't eat?

By your logic posted earlier, that's fine? I can spank you on your butt or slap a ruler to your hand one day when you have Alzheimer's and are sundowning and refuse your meds?

To your first question, moderate spanking can be more effective, and over much more quickly for everyone, than alternate repercussions. It’s not for everything, certainly.

To your second point, you have a lot of control over patients. But, generally speaking, you are not in a position to impose some sort of punishment on a patient, including those with mental disabilities. You simply do the best you can to work with them and, basically, tolerate them. You’re not in a role where you are teaching them about better behavior and molding their future social interactions.

[Anonymous]

no one is saying kids should not have consequences.
we are all saying that one of those consequences should not be hitting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no one is saying kids should not have consequences.
we are all saying that one of those consequences should not be hitting them.

That’s not true that no one is saying there should not be consequences. A PP on the previous page was essentially arguing that negative consequences in general are counterproductive.

And, obviously, throughout this discussion, not all of the commenters are opposed to spanking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why people defend hurting children. If your spouse hits you it's intimate partner violence. If another person hits it's assault. But somehow hitting children is okay.

I was spanked as a child. It taught me that hitting children was not okay. I remember seeing a mom spank her kid because he was hitting people at the playground. I guess she didn't connect the dots

The purpose of any punishment is to inflict some form of pain or unpleasantness, whether that is deprivation of something enjoyed like a toy, or deprivation of a privilege like watching a show, or it could be a mild sting to your bottom.

Whatever it is, it is an unpleasant consequence that has the intention of deterring a repeat of the same behavior. It normally accompanies instruction or teaching about what is acceptable to do instead.

Parents are allowed and often required to provide such consequences, and they have the legitimate authority as parents to implement them. Children do not have the authority over other people to implement any of these consequences.

It's an ineffective solution. You dispute the research like a conspiracy theorist dodges logic. So I get there's no arguing with someone who will only "move the goalposts" so to speak.

What’s your basis for saying it’s ineffective?

You don't know how to look up research? Cursory Google or Google scholar search or go on pubmed and just read abstracts if you can't get fulltext.

If you want to say all the research is bunk, that's your opinion, but has the hallmark of how a conspiracy theorist thinks. If you want to cherry pick one study or person you devoutly believe while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, that's also typical of a conspiracy theorist.

If there were controlled research, I’d consider it. But unscientific research is not reliable.

I have my own experience to know what’s effective.

Why spank when alternative repercussions and management solutions are effective and don't have the potential emotional or physically painful repercussion (and yes, I was spanked, I remember as far back as being spanked at 4 years old how I felt)?

I only need to threaten to take away a beloved toy for my kid to comply. But sure, maybe my kids are easy. But on the flipside, I have a family member who adopted a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome who acts out sometimes violently. Guess what? They don't spank either.

I am a nurse who has dealt with confused incapacitated patients, psych patients, drug withdrawal patients, violent patients. Hitting isn't ok in these circumstances even though we have to work with people without full capacity who don't have ability to reason. Should I be allowed to spank a patient if they won't take their medicine or refuse a bed bath or wound dressing change or sneak food they shouldn't eat?

By your logic posted earlier, that's fine? I can spank you on your butt or slap a ruler to your hand one day when you have Alzheimer's and are sundowning and refuse your meds?

To your first question, moderate spanking can be more effective, and over much more quickly for everyone, than alternate repercussions. It’s not for everything, certainly.

To your second point, you have a lot of control over patients. But, generally speaking, you are not in a position to impose some sort of punishment on a patient, including those with mental disabilities. You simply do the best you can to work with them and, basically, tolerate them. You’re not in a role where you are teaching them about better behavior and molding their future social interactions.

1. Don't think spanking is more immediately effective if it takes more time to do than it takes me to speak the words "If you don't stop doing xyz I will take your favorite doll". In addition, drawback of spanking is kid feels more angry and emotional and violent. I remember being around 4/5 and turning around to hit either my doll or another kid after being spanked because of how angry I was. I believe the research that spanking produces more tendency to act out after spanking because I can literally remember it. And I'm a shy kid who never got into trouble at school (never spanked at school) but immediately after spanking in my home, I felt violent and wanted to be violent. My sibling also definitely acted out more after spanking - and took it out on me when our parent wasn't looking.

2. You cannot teach about better better behavior and MODELING future social interactions with spanking. That's illogical. So your argument about why this is ok for parents (and teachers?) literally makes zero sense.

3. New point, but obsevational/correlationsl research is good enough for me when we are talking about potential harms and how kids act out more afterwards, not less. I remember the few times my parent devolved past mundane spanking into whalloping because they were overwhelmed. Won't forget it. Won't ever hit my kids because of it. I'm sorry you ignore 20 years of research and extensive meta-analysis and even yes, whatever couple tiny control studies also show the same thing because you are so keen to use your hands rather than words for discipline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My siblings and I got spanked and we weren't narcissistic, screen-addicted a-holes like most little kids today.

There was a kid wailing and loudly complaining the entire 90 minute game this past Saturday because his tablet died.

If your kid is unable to behave like a normal human for 90 minutes without a tablet stuck in their hand, you're a terrible parent. Everyone thinks it, but I'm saying it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why people defend hurting children. If your spouse hits you it's intimate partner violence. If another person hits it's assault. But somehow hitting children is okay.

I was spanked as a child. It taught me that hitting children was not okay. I remember seeing a mom spank her kid because he was hitting people at the playground. I guess she didn't connect the dots

The purpose of any punishment is to inflict some form of pain or unpleasantness, whether that is deprivation of something enjoyed like a toy, or deprivation of a privilege like watching a show, or it could be a mild sting to your bottom.

Whatever it is, it is an unpleasant consequence that has the intention of deterring a repeat of the same behavior. It normally accompanies instruction or teaching about what is acceptable to do instead.

Parents are allowed and often required to provide such consequences, and they have the legitimate authority as parents to implement them. Children do not have the authority over other people to implement any of these consequences.

It's an ineffective solution. You dispute the research like a conspiracy theorist dodges logic. So I get there's no arguing with someone who will only "move the goalposts" so to speak.

What’s your basis for saying it’s ineffective?

You don't know how to look up research? Cursory Google or Google scholar search or go on pubmed and just read abstracts if you can't get fulltext.

If you want to say all the research is bunk, that's your opinion, but has the hallmark of how a conspiracy theorist thinks. If you want to cherry pick one study or person you devoutly believe while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, that's also typical of a conspiracy theorist.

If there were controlled research, I’d consider it. But unscientific research is not reliable.

I have my own experience to know what’s effective.

Why spank when alternative repercussions and management solutions are effective and don't have the potential emotional or physically painful repercussion (and yes, I was spanked, I remember as far back as being spanked at 4 years old how I felt)?

I only need to threaten to take away a beloved toy for my kid to comply. But sure, maybe my kids are easy. But on the flipside, I have a family member who adopted a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome who acts out sometimes violently. Guess what? They don't spank either.

I am a nurse who has dealt with confused incapacitated patients, psych patients, drug withdrawal patients, violent patients. Hitting isn't ok in these circumstances even though we have to work with people without full capacity who don't have ability to reason. Should I be allowed to spank a patient if they won't take their medicine or refuse a bed bath or wound dressing change or sneak food they shouldn't eat?

By your logic posted earlier, that's fine? I can spank you on your butt or slap a ruler to your hand one day when you have Alzheimer's and are sundowning and refuse your meds?

To your first question, moderate spanking can be more effective, and over much more quickly for everyone, than alternate repercussions. It’s not for everything, certainly.

To your second point, you have a lot of control over patients. But, generally speaking, you are not in a position to impose some sort of punishment on a patient, including those with mental disabilities. You simply do the best you can to work with them and, basically, tolerate them. You’re not in a role where you are teaching them about better behavior and molding their future social interactions.

1. Don't think spanking is more immediately effective if it takes more time to do than it takes me to speak the words "If you don't stop doing xyz I will take your favorite doll". In addition, drawback of spanking is kid feels more angry and emotional and violent. I remember being around 4/5 and turning around to hit either my doll or another kid after being spanked because of how angry I was. I believe the research that spanking produces more tendency to act out after spanking because I can literally remember it. And I'm a shy kid who never got into trouble at school (never spanked at school) but immediately after spanking in my home, I felt violent and wanted to be violent. My sibling also definitely acted out more after spanking - and took it out on me when our parent wasn't looking.

2. You cannot teach about better better behavior and MODELING future social interactions with spanking. That's illogical. So your argument about why this is ok for parents (and teachers?) literally makes zero sense.

3. New point, but obsevational/correlationsl research is good enough for me when we are talking about potential harms and how kids act out more afterwards, not less. I remember the few times my parent devolved past mundane spanking into whalloping because they were overwhelmed. Won't forget it. Won't ever hit my kids because of it. I'm sorry you ignore 20 years of research and extensive meta-analysis and even yes, whatever couple tiny control studies also show the same thing because you are so keen to use your hands rather than words for discipline.

As you say, we’re both believing what we choose to believe based on personal experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My siblings and I got spanked and we weren't narcissistic, screen-addicted a-holes like most little kids today.

There was a kid wailing and loudly complaining the entire 90 minute game this past Saturday because his tablet died.

If your kid is unable to behave like a normal human for 90 minutes without a tablet stuck in their hand, you're a terrible parent. Everyone thinks it, but I'm saying it.

+1

It is impossible for me to overstate the extent to which I do NOT care what anyone who spanks their children thinks of me or my children.
Also the idea that anyone who hits their kids is standing in judgement for me bc my kid is whining is beyond ironic and laughable.
But again - I dont care bc the second you spank your children you lose all legitimacy and can no longer judge anyone because you're an abusive ahole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why people defend hurting children. If your spouse hits you it's intimate partner violence. If another person hits it's assault. But somehow hitting children is okay.

I was spanked as a child. It taught me that hitting children was not okay. I remember seeing a mom spank her kid because he was hitting people at the playground. I guess she didn't connect the dots

The purpose of any punishment is to inflict some form of pain or unpleasantness, whether that is deprivation of something enjoyed like a toy, or deprivation of a privilege like watching a show, or it could be a mild sting to your bottom.

Whatever it is, it is an unpleasant consequence that has the intention of deterring a repeat of the same behavior. It normally accompanies instruction or teaching about what is acceptable to do instead.

Parents are allowed and often required to provide such consequences, and they have the legitimate authority as parents to implement them. Children do not have the authority over other people to implement any of these consequences.

It's an ineffective solution. You dispute the research like a conspiracy theorist dodges logic. So I get there's no arguing with someone who will only "move the goalposts" so to speak.

What’s your basis for saying it’s ineffective?

You don't know how to look up research? Cursory Google or Google scholar search or go on pubmed and just read abstracts if you can't get fulltext.

If you want to say all the research is bunk, that's your opinion, but has the hallmark of how a conspiracy theorist thinks. If you want to cherry pick one study or person you devoutly believe while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, that's also typical of a conspiracy theorist.

If there were controlled research, I’d consider it. But unscientific research is not reliable.

I have my own experience to know what’s effective.

Why spank when alternative repercussions and management solutions are effective and don't have the potential emotional or physically painful repercussion (and yes, I was spanked, I remember as far back as being spanked at 4 years old how I felt)?

I only need to threaten to take away a beloved toy for my kid to comply. But sure, maybe my kids are easy. But on the flipside, I have a family member who adopted a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome who acts out sometimes violently. Guess what? They don't spank either.

I am a nurse who has dealt with confused incapacitated patients, psych patients, drug withdrawal patients, violent patients. Hitting isn't ok in these circumstances even though we have to work with people without full capacity who don't have ability to reason. Should I be allowed to spank a patient if they won't take their medicine or refuse a bed bath or wound dressing change or sneak food they shouldn't eat?

By your logic posted earlier, that's fine? I can spank you on your butt or slap a ruler to your hand one day when you have Alzheimer's and are sundowning and refuse your meds?

To your first question, moderate spanking can be more effective, and over much more quickly for everyone, than alternate repercussions. It’s not for everything, certainly.

To your second point, you have a lot of control over patients. But, generally speaking, you are not in a position to impose some sort of punishment on a patient, including those with mental disabilities. You simply do the best you can to work with them and, basically, tolerate them. You’re not in a role where you are teaching them about better behavior and molding their future social interactions.

1. Don't think spanking is more immediately effective if it takes more time to do than it takes me to speak the words "If you don't stop doing xyz I will take your favorite doll". In addition, drawback of spanking is kid feels more angry and emotional and violent. I remember being around 4/5 and turning around to hit either my doll or another kid after being spanked because of how angry I was. I believe the research that spanking produces more tendency to act out after spanking because I can literally remember it. And I'm a shy kid who never got into trouble at school (never spanked at school) but immediately after spanking in my home, I felt violent and wanted to be violent. My sibling also definitely acted out more after spanking - and took it out on me when our parent wasn't looking.

2. You cannot teach about better better behavior and MODELING future social interactions with spanking. That's illogical. So your argument about why this is ok for parents (and teachers?) literally makes zero sense.

3. New point, but obsevational/correlationsl research is good enough for me when we are talking about potential harms and how kids act out more afterwards, not less. I remember the few times my parent devolved past mundane spanking into whalloping because they were overwhelmed. Won't forget it. Won't ever hit my kids because of it. I'm sorry you ignore 20 years of research and extensive meta-analysis and even yes, whatever couple tiny control studies also show the same thing because you are so keen to use your hands rather than words for discipline.

As you say, we’re both believing what we choose to believe based on personal experiences.

You missed the point about 20 years of research and meta analyses because only control studies are good enough. I guess we should also ignore ant research showing negative outcomes for medications in pregnancy because we can't do control studies. Same logic.

[Anonymous]

Prisons are full of people who were spanked and taught to love Jesus. In fact, I'd bet considerable amounts of money that the per capita rates of kids who were spanked going to prison exceeds the per capita rates of kids who were not spanked going to prison.

(Same with kids raised in religious families versus those raised by atheists.)

I just think that people who believe you need religion and corporal punishment to raise a moral and well-behaved child are very, very wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why people defend hurting children. If your spouse hits you it's intimate partner violence. If another person hits it's assault. But somehow hitting children is okay.

I was spanked as a child. It taught me that hitting children was not okay. I remember seeing a mom spank her kid because he was hitting people at the playground. I guess she didn't connect the dots

The purpose of any punishment is to inflict some form of pain or unpleasantness, whether that is deprivation of something enjoyed like a toy, or deprivation of a privilege like watching a show, or it could be a mild sting to your bottom.

Whatever it is, it is an unpleasant consequence that has the intention of deterring a repeat of the same behavior. It normally accompanies instruction or teaching about what is acceptable to do instead.

Parents are allowed and often required to provide such consequences, and they have the legitimate authority as parents to implement them. Children do not have the authority over other people to implement any of these consequences.

It's an ineffective solution. You dispute the research like a conspiracy theorist dodges logic. So I get there's no arguing with someone who will only "move the goalposts" so to speak.

What’s your basis for saying it’s ineffective?

You don't know how to look up research? Cursory Google or Google scholar search or go on pubmed and just read abstracts if you can't get fulltext.

If you want to say all the research is bunk, that's your opinion, but has the hallmark of how a conspiracy theorist thinks. If you want to cherry pick one study or person you devoutly believe while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, that's also typical of a conspiracy theorist.

If there were controlled research, I’d consider it. But unscientific research is not reliable.

I have my own experience to know what’s effective.

Why spank when alternative repercussions and management solutions are effective and don't have the potential emotional or physically painful repercussion (and yes, I was spanked, I remember as far back as being spanked at 4 years old how I felt)?

I only need to threaten to take away a beloved toy for my kid to comply. But sure, maybe my kids are easy. But on the flipside, I have a family member who adopted a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome who acts out sometimes violently. Guess what? They don't spank either.

I am a nurse who has dealt with confused incapacitated patients, psych patients, drug withdrawal patients, violent patients. Hitting isn't ok in these circumstances even though we have to work with people without full capacity who don't have ability to reason. Should I be allowed to spank a patient if they won't take their medicine or refuse a bed bath or wound dressing change or sneak food they shouldn't eat?

By your logic posted earlier, that's fine? I can spank you on your butt or slap a ruler to your hand one day when you have Alzheimer's and are sundowning and refuse your meds?

To your first question, moderate spanking can be more effective, and over much more quickly for everyone, than alternate repercussions. It’s not for everything, certainly.

To your second point, you have a lot of control over patients. But, generally speaking, you are not in a position to impose some sort of punishment on a patient, including those with mental disabilities. You simply do the best you can to work with them and, basically, tolerate them. You’re not in a role where you are teaching them about better behavior and molding their future social interactions.

1. Don't think spanking is more immediately effective if it takes more time to do than it takes me to speak the words "If you don't stop doing xyz I will take your favorite doll". In addition, drawback of spanking is kid feels more angry and emotional and violent. I remember being around 4/5 and turning around to hit either my doll or another kid after being spanked because of how angry I was. I believe the research that spanking produces more tendency to act out after spanking because I can literally remember it. And I'm a shy kid who never got into trouble at school (never spanked at school) but immediately after spanking in my home, I felt violent and wanted to be violent. My sibling also definitely acted out more after spanking - and took it out on me when our parent wasn't looking.

2. You cannot teach about better better behavior and MODELING future social interactions with spanking. That's illogical. So your argument about why this is ok for parents (and teachers?) literally makes zero sense.

3. New point, but obsevational/correlationsl research is good enough for me when we are talking about potential harms and how kids act out more afterwards, not less. I remember the few times my parent devolved past mundane spanking into whalloping because they were overwhelmed. Won't forget it. Won't ever hit my kids because of it. I'm sorry you ignore 20 years of research and extensive meta-analysis and even yes, whatever couple tiny control studies also show the same thing because you are so keen to use your hands rather than words for discipline.

As you say, we’re both believing what we choose to believe based on personal experiences.

You missed the point about 20 years of research and meta analyses because only control studies are good enough. I guess we should also ignore ant research showing negative outcomes for medications in pregnancy because we can't do control studies. Same logic.

No I didn’t. The research is invalid because it is not scientific. I am a strong believer in the Scientific Method, it is my field, in fact. The research treats all forms of corporal punishment as a binary variable. It’s beyond useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prisons are full of people who were spanked and taught to love Jesus. In fact, I'd bet considerable amounts of money that the per capita rates of kids who were spanked going to prison exceeds the per capita rates of kids who were not spanked going to prison.

(Same with kids raised in religious families versus those raised by atheists.)

I just think that people who believe you need religion and corporal punishment to raise a moral and well-behaved child are very, very wrong.

Kids whose parents drive a Lexus are less likely to go to prison than kids whose parents drive a Nissan Altima with spinning rims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prisons are full of people who were spanked and taught to love Jesus. In fact, I'd bet considerable amounts of money that the per capita rates of kids who were spanked going to prison exceeds the per capita rates of kids who were not spanked going to prison.

(Same with kids raised in religious families versus those raised by atheists.)

I just think that people who believe you need religion and corporal punishment to raise a moral and well-behaved child are very, very wrong.

You’re attacking a strawman.