Anonymous wrote:After reading through these forums and seeing the pride that so many take from hitting their children, I'm really curious about this.

You are hitting your children. Why not own it?

So they can sleep at night. It's hitting, straight up. If a spouse did it to them they'd be arrested

Anonymous wrote:I thought the intention of spanking is to overpower someone who is helpless. That's my definition of hitting, too.

OMG that's ridiculous. When you are defending someone else or yourself by hitting that other person are you overpowering someone who is helpless? No, quite the opposite. The other person has the power in such a case.

And before you twist that logic and say you are not defending yourself by spanking, I'm merely showing how your words "definition of hitting" is "overpowering someone who is helpless" is ridiculous. The definition of hitting is striking someone. Yes, you strike a child when you spank, but the intent is different.

If a kid hits another kid, the kid who got hit wouldn't say, "he spanked me". No, he would say, "he hit me".

The definition of a word is powerful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Intent and technique are different.

Oh. Nice justification there! That's what I expected.

Just own it. You hit your kids. Own it.

OP, the answer is that it is amore precise word for most acts of spanking. Hitting encompasses both intentional and unintentional acts, and does not describe intent:
I hit the mailbox backing out of the drive way.
I hit my son's elbow when I was trying to give a high five.
When I thought he was trying to steal my purse, I hit him in the head with my keys.
I was so angry at his comment that I hit him in the chest.

Spanking is intentionally striking with the intent to punish and or change behavior.

For the record, I do not spank my kids. But arguing semantics is silly.

Also:

"what a great workout, let's hit the showers."

"She's pretty hot, I would hit that."

"I have 15, Dealer's showing a 10. Hit me."

Anonymous wrote:After reading through these forums and seeing the pride that so many take from hitting their children, I'm really curious about this.

You are hitting your children. Why not own it?

Agree completely. The way these fools justify their barbarism is predictable and depressing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were you beat as a child OP? Is that part of your difficulty understanding the difference?

Or are you raising little hellions who listen to no one so you are trying to justify your parenting style with "at least I don't spank" threads?

Neither.

I just want you to own it.

I don't spank. My kids are too old and when they were the appropriate age they would have likely just laughed at me.

I was spanked as a child. No scars, mentally or physically, and I am a better person for it. I also know the difference between spanking, hitting and abuse.

My uncle was abusive to his kids and my aunt. To equate calm and loving spanking as a limited discipline technique with abuse shows that you have no idea of what abuse and violence towards children is and trivializes actual abuse and its lifelong effects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the intention of spanking is to overpower someone who is helpless. That's my definition of hitting, too.

Actually, your definition isn't correct for either.

Lol. So true. OP is losing it.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the intention of spanking is to overpower someone who is helpless. That's my definition of hitting, too.

Actually, your definition isn't correct for either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Intent and technique are different.

Oh. Nice justification there! That's what I expected.

Just own it. You hit your kids. Own it.

OP, the answer is that it is amore precise word for most acts of spanking. Hitting encompasses both intentional and unintentional acts, and does not describe intent:
I hit the mailbox backing out of the drive way.
I hit my son's elbow when I was trying to give a high five.
When I thought he was trying to steal my purse, I hit him in the head with my keys.
I was so angry at his comment that I hit him in the chest.

Spanking is intentionally striking with the intent to punish and or change behavior.

For the record, I do not spank my kids. But arguing semantics is silly.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the intention of spanking is to overpower someone who is helpless. That's my definition of hitting, too.

No, it's a form of disciplinary punishment commonly used for young children. A dictionary is your friend.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the intention of spanking is to overpower someone who is helpless. That's my definition of hitting, too.

No, look at the definition. It's for punishment, not for overpowering.

Omg. I don't really believe in spanking and have never and will never spank my kids, but OP is a little cray cray with the own it crap!

Anonymous wrote:Because "soaking" more precisely conveys context, intention, severity, and purpose.

Autocorrect. Spanking.

Because "soaking" more precisely conveys context, intention, severity, and purpose.

I thought the intention of spanking is to overpower someone who is helpless. That's my definition of hitting, too.

Intent, like manslaughter vs. murder. End result is the same (someone died), but the intent was not the same. Same goes for spanking/hitting.