Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me and all my siblings were spanked. We're all okay. We grew up well-behaved too.

Do you and your siblings spank your kids?

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.

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?

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.

Studies have shown that punishment of this variety -- "unpleasant consequences" -- are of minimal effectiveness. Study after study shows that positive reinforcement beats punitive action every time.

Punishments like spanking often actually increase misbehavior. So often the behavior a parent is trying to correct is something a child is doing accidentally, impulsively, or in desperation. They are young and don't have as much practice at being people, so it can be very difficult for them to control behavior. They are still learning.

When a child can't figure out how to control the behavior that is getting them spanked, they will resort to other methods for avoiding punishment -- lying, blaming others, running away, or attempting to justify behavior through argument. This in turn is seen as more misbehavior by the parent, requiring more punishment. It's a downward spiral.

Positive reinforcement coupled with actual guidance (tools to help children control impulsivity, understand alternatives to negative behavior, and fix accidents on their own) offers an actually productive path to raising kids who make good choice, communicate well, and treat others with kindness and respect. It's really the only reasonable approach to parenting and a mark of a truly authoritative parent who understands their role.

Being a parent is not an entitlement to punish children. It's a responsibility to teach them. Spanking is a cruel and ineffective method for teaching children.

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.

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.

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?

Hm so if an adult is incapacitated or has the mind or current rationale of a child, I as a nurse can hit them? I do force them into restraints and have to bathe them when they don't like it. So I can hit them too?

No, having authority over someone does NOT give you the right to hit them. That's not an argument, it's a lazy excuse.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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