Spanking/Belting... Child Abuse or not?

[ineap09]

Discipline and respect are not ideas that are best taught by lessons derived in pain.

What should the lessons be derived in then, may I ask?

 

[Midna]

Given how ShadowSoldier has hung around here every second of the way in this thread, defending physical punishment toward children, I'm guessing he made this thread to get people to agree with him and feel justified in his actions. Nice one, mate.

 

[Shinigami357]

Discipline and respect are not ideas that are best taught by lessons derived in pain.

What should the lessons be derived in then, may I ask?

Well, that depends on the person. Generally speaking, lessons derived from personal experience tends to be one of the best way to learn. Of course, we can't allow all lessons to be learned that way, so there's always learning from association or interaction with others. The most important people to associate and interact with being parents, of course, and hitting a child would be detrimental toward that goal, I think you'd agree. Then there's learning from instruction or precedence, because humans, as a species tend to face the same basic challenges throughout history, and as such, when a person or verifiable historical record offers enlightenment in such cases, it wold be best to listen that we may learn.

There's a lot more ways, all of which can be achieved without the need for physical (and in extension, psychological) battering of any sort.

 

[xakota]

Spanking is the only conceivable way to raise good children. My little brother has been spanked since birth, and he is the most perfect kid you can imagine. My cousin his age, on the other hand, is parented almost exactly the same way my brother is, but instead of spanking he gets "Time outs". And I love my cousin, but he is a little shit. Spanking works. I don't care if liberal morons make it against the law someday, it's how I'm going to raise my kids. It's the only way. Kids need to learn there are consequences to their actions.

 

[Midna]

But the consequences in this case are arbitrary, contrived and imposed by the parents. I'd rather think it might teach a few kids that they can't let their parents find out when they've done something wrong.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Given how ShadowSoldier has hung around here every second of the way in this thread, defending physical punishment toward children, I'm guessing he made this thread to get people to agree with him and feel justified in his actions. Nice one, mate.

Try again buddy, I have multiple tabs open. Right now, I have Facebook, Kotaku, [censored], GameTrailers, Digg, and a bunch of GBAtemp tabs open so I don't forget the threads. Nice attempt at trying to troll me though.

 

[GamerzInc]

I'm completely for it. Children nowadays are complete badasses. I think spanking is great, and when they're of age and deserve it, the belt is fine too. A good whoopin keeps a child straight and less likely to get in trouble. I think it teaches discipline. I was extremely mischievous and I know that spankings straightened me out. Did I deserve them? Yes...most of them were deserved and I knew why I was getting them. That said, I was never spanked or belted when I didn't deserve it. After a certain age the hand does not work, it's too soft.

All that said, I've been spanked, belted, switched, poled, lol. My friends have had that and more, lots lots worse. We've never called it abuse. Different parenting stiles though. My mom/dad would have never punished us the way my friends were, but then again, my friends were huge and built. XD Different styles. People complaining about abuse probably do have issues in their head. Well, they can't help how they turned out.

We do need to continue the spankings/beatings when theyre well deserved. As it stands I don't want my future in the hands of the youth of today. The majority of them are loud, stupid, disrespectful, and are just a let down/disappointment. They way they act saddens me. Where did they go wrong?

 

[Sterling]

Discipline and respect are not ideas that are best taught by lessons derived in pain.

What should the lessons be derived in then, may I ask?

Well, that depends on the person. Generally speaking, lessons derived from personal experience tends to be one of the best way to learn. Of course, we can't allow all lessons to be learned that way, so there's always learning from association or interaction with others. The most important people to associate and interact with being parents, of course, and hitting a child would be detrimental toward that goal, I think you'd agree. Then there's learning from instruction or precedence, because humans, as a species tend to face the same basic challenges throughout history, and as such, when a person or verifiable historical record offers enlightenment in such cases, it wold be best to listen that we may learn.

There's a lot more ways, all of which can be achieved without the need for physical (and in extension, psychological) battering of any sort.

But, you are leaving out that spanking doesn't have to be about pain. I firmly believe that if a parent starts "spanking" at a very young age (2 - 3), it really doesn't have to have "pain" attached to it. You can spank without leaving a mark, and a only a sting for a second or two, so where is the line of abuse drawn? You aren't being verbally abusing (name calling, degrading, etc), you aren't leaving marks, and psychologically speaking, teaching that there are consequences for wrong doing. Where is it bad, and why can it be called abuse when it works with proper administration. I respect personal choices, but to go as far as to argue that it is abuse is beyond me. After you get across the point that you are prepared to whack you offspring one or two, a simple threat will work. If they decide to test that a few years down the line, reinforce it. The line I draw is at age 13, where you're growing up very fast. Anything below is good enough to perhaps embarrass to hooey out of them knowing that you will back it up anytime and perhaps anywhere (hopefully you'll already have the point across). After you dole out the punishment sit down and talk to them, ask a few questions and ground/take something away.

 

[Midna]

Given how ShadowSoldier has hung around here every second of the way in this thread, defending physical punishment toward children, I'm guessing he made this thread to get people to agree with him and feel justified in his actions. Nice one, mate.

Try again buddy, I have multiple tabs open. Right now, I have Facebook, Kotaku, [censored], GameTrailers, Digg, and a bunch of GBAtemp tabs open so I don't forget the threads. Nice attempt at trying to troll me though.

No, I'm absolutely serious. It really does seem like you made this to get support and perceived justification.
So you just keep all threads you post in perpetually in an open tab in case anyone replies? Strange...

Edit, just read this:
QUOTE

We do need to continue the spankings/beatings when theyre well deserved. As it stands I don't want my future in the hands of the youth of today. The majority of them are loud, stupid, disrespectful, and are just a let down/disappointment. They way they act saddens me. Where did they go wrong?

The above has literally been said about every single generation throughout history.

 

[ineap09]

Discipline and respect are not ideas that are best taught by lessons derived in pain.
What should the lessons be derived in then, may I ask?


Well, that depends on the person. Generally speaking, lessons derived from personal experience tends to be one of the best way to learn. Of course, we can't allow all lessons to be learned that way, so there's always learning from association or interaction with others. The most important people to associate and interact with being parents, of course, and hitting a child would be detrimental toward that goal, I think you'd agree. Then there's learning from instruction or precedence, because humans, as a species tend to face the same basic challenges throughout history, and as such, when a person or verifiable historical record offers enlightenment in such cases, it wold be best to listen that we may learn.

There's a lot more ways, all of which can be achieved without the need for physical (and in extension, psychological) battering of any sort.


Okay, so let's say your kid throws rocks at a car or something destructive like that. You would first tell them to not do it, right? What if they don't listen to you? How do they learn to obey you, their parent? You would have to punish them for not obeying you, right? In the lesson to learn to obey you, would the lesson be derived in personal experience? To me, if you spank your child for disobeying, and they know that you are not spanking them in anger, but as a consequence for wrong, then they would associate pain with disobedience, and that could serve as their personal experience(wow, I used a lot of conjunctions in this sentence). If you do not use pain as a punishment, what would you use? Would you take away their favorite toy? Would you make it so that they can't watch their favorite TV show for a week? These, to me, don't seem as effective as pain. Will they stop disobeying you because they no longer have their toy?

To me, there are indeed many ways in which children should learn, but direct disobedience(in regards to wrong and right) is very strong. It needs to be ingrained in them that that is the ultimate wrong, therefore, the ultimate punishment.

QUOTEThe most important people to associate and interact with being parents, of course, and hitting a child would be detrimental toward that goal, I think you'd agree.

I believe that the only way that physical punishment would be detrimental toward that goal, would be if the child didn't understand that the pain was a consequence for disobedience. I can see that if they don't, they would fear the parent instead of the consequence which would indeed be very detrimental to the important relationship of the two, but if they only fear the consequence, and not the parent, then I do not see anything detrimental, but instead, that may make the relationship better with the child knowing that the parent loves them enough to make sure they be the best person they can be(in other words, do right, avoid wrong).

QUOTE

Then there's learning from instruction or precedence, because humans, as a species tend to face the same basic challenges throughout history, and as such, when a person or verifiable historical record offers enlightenment in such cases, it wold be best to listen that we may learn.

It takes time before the child has enough maturity to listen to someone or something like that without the need for fear of consequence.

The main thing I want to know from you, is how would you make your child learn to not disobey you(in regards to right and wrong)?

P.S. I agree with everything Argentum Vir just said.

 

[Shinigami357]

I can't believe I'll be doing this... *sigh*

I'm personally not one of those bleeding-heart activists who wouldn't hurt a fly. I can understand the concept of due reward and punishment as well as the next guy. However, in relation to children (from infancy right around to being teenagers) it is my solemn belief that an iron hand is not the way to go.

First of all, teaching discipline or whatever is not a struggle between parent and child, because no child is inherently "bad" so to speak. It is a struggle between the parent, the environment and in some cases the parent him-/herself. Turning on the child when the mind is still so impressionable for things that can't directly be attributed or blamed on the child will (in most cases) take root toward childhood trauma. A child might appear normal, continuing to live under fear of the "consequences" of his actions, but sooner or later, the fear disappears and the child is left with the impression that the ONLY way to settle things is with physical violence.

Seriously, I can see it just from reading some of the posts here. Clear evidence that hitting a child is no more a way to raise children as throwing your DS to the nearest wall is a way to fix a freeze; they're both stupid, inelegant and usually do not result in the way we want them to. It's all just a vicious circle. Can't you guys look past yourselves or the way you were raised and give it a chance?

Anyway, I think the root cause of why people insist on this way of "raising children" is due to the way the human brain is wired. As a human species, there's always a deep-seated "animalistic instinct" buried there. Like when people "snap" or something, the first instinct is violence. Sometimes it occurs in more subtle ways. It can be irritation, stress, whatever, but the first reaction is always to hit anything or anyone. In the case of some parents, the first thing is their child. It's all kinds of wrong and as can b e plainly seen by the views of some of our tempers, it's not something most people care about; they just adhere to the false ideology that hitting something equates to fixing it.

 

[BORTZ]

Whenever I was spanked/belted, my dad always spoke to me afterwards in a calm voice about WHY it happened. It's not like he came home from work and was like "OY PRICK! COME HERE! YOU DO THIS?! *SMASH SMASH SMASH*"

Good point.
I forgot that part when i typed my response.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

No, I'm absolutely serious. It really does seem like you made this to get support and perceived justification.
So you just keep all threads you post in perpetually in an open tab in case anyone replies? Strange...

I didn't say that. Now you're just twisting words around to make it look like you're right.

QUOTEa bunch of GBAtemp tabs open so I don't forget the threads.

In other words, so I don't forget the threads or anything. Even threads I haven't started, I keep an open tab in them because otherwise, I forget they exist, and I never bother to come back or check them at all again. I've always been like that, it's never going to change. Deal with it.

 

[Sterling]

@Shinigami: I think that reasoning is flawed. Looking at past abuse cases that have come to law it I can conclude that a good whack every once in a while for something a child KNOWS is wrong (and yet did it anyway) is NOT going to cause deep seated trauma unless there is a pre-existing condition with a child. I however see frequent spankings a problem. Especially if they turn violent. Never underestimate the power of the "Attitude Adjustment" (as my dad called it).

 

[Shinigami357]

Discipline and respect are not ideas that are best taught by lessons derived in pain.

What should the lessons be derived in then, may I ask?

Well, that depends on the person. Generally speaking, lessons derived from personal experience tends to be one of the best way to learn. Of course, we can't allow all lessons to be learned that way, so there's always learning from association or interaction with others. The most important people to associate and interact with being parents, of course, and hitting a child would be detrimental toward that goal, I think you'd agree. Then there's learning from instruction or precedence, because humans, as a species tend to face the same basic challenges throughout history, and as such, when a person or verifiable historical record offers enlightenment in such cases, it wold be best to listen that we may learn.

There's a lot more ways, all of which can be achieved without the need for physical (and in extension, psychological) battering of any sort.

But, you are leaving out that spanking doesn't have to be about pain. I firmly believe that if a parent starts "spanking" at a very young age (2 - 3), it really doesn't have to have "pain" attached to it. You can spank without leaving a mark, and a only a sting for a second or two, so where is the line of abuse drawn? You aren't being verbally abusing (name calling, degrading, etc), you aren't leaving marks, and psychologically speaking, teaching that there are consequences for wrong doing. Where is it bad, and why can it be called abuse when it works with proper administration. I respect personal choices, but to go as far as to argue that it is abuse is beyond me. After you get across the point that you are prepared to whack you offspring one or two, a simple threat will work. If they decide to test that a few years down the line, reinforce it. The line I draw is at age 13, where you're growing up very fast. Anything below is good enough to perhaps embarrass to hooey out of them knowing that you will back it up anytime and perhaps anywhere (hopefully you'll already have the point across). After you dole out the punishment sit down and talk to them, ask a few questions and ground/take something away.

Abuse can be all kinds of things. Pain, by itself is either physical or psychological; the act of hitting creates both. You hit a sentient being, and not only do you push a physical stress towards its consciousness, but also its mental and psychological capacities. Children aren't exactly most perceptive towards which actions count for which ideas. Again, I stress hitting does NOT equate to fixing a problem. It is only a placebo effect of sorts. We hit a child, he obeys and we think we are doing the right thing, but in essence, we are planting the idea that punishment is essential to learning, which it most certainly is not. Because sooner or later, that child will grow up and more than likely will have the same twisted sense of right/wrong and the idea that punishment is always the answer.

I can accept that there is no easy answer, but I will continue to believe that this form of "discipline" most certainly is NOT the right way to do things.

 

[ineap09]

Hah, sorry. You don't have to be pulled into this debate if you really don't want to.

First of all, teaching discipline or whatever is not a struggle between parent and child, because no child is inherently "bad" so to speak. It is a struggle between the parent, the environment and in some cases the parent him-/herself. Turning on the child when the mind is still so impressionable for things that can't directly be attributed or blamed on the child will (in most cases) take root toward childhood trauma. A child might appear normal, continuing to live under fear of the "consequences" of his actions, but sooner or later, the fear disappears and the child is left with the impression that the ONLY way to settle things is with physical violence.
Everything you said here is completely accurate...if the parent isn't doing their job right. If the child is young enough were it doesn't understand right from wrong, they they can't do anything wrong. If something happens, it's the fault of the parent not the child. Once the child is old enough to know wrong from right, and they chose to disobey the parent by doing something wrong, they are old enough to know that it's the consequence for the wrong not the parent reaching back in their animal nature.

This leads me to another thing. NEVER SPANK IN ANGER. If you spank in anger, I can see the child receiving some trauma, but if you do it with love, it will not become childhood trauma because they will default the pain to what they did wrong, not the parent.

the fear disappears and the child is left with the impression that the ONLY way to settle things is with physical violence.
That is only if the parent exclusively uses spankings as punishment. I believe spanking should be the ultimate punishment, not regular punishment.
QUOTE

Anyway, I think the root cause of why people insist on this way of "raising children" is due to the way the human brain is wired. As a human species, there's always a deep-seated "animalistic instinct" buried there. Like when people "snap" or something, the first instinct is violence. Sometimes it occurs in more subtle ways. It can be irritation, stress, whatever, but the first reaction is always to hit anything or anyone. In the case of some parents, the first thing is their child. It's all kinds of wrong and as can b e plainly seen by the views of some of our tempers, it's not something most people care about; they just adhere to the false ideology that hitting something equates to fixing it.

If you give physical punishment for a consequence for a wrong that the child knew was wrong, and do it with love(being calm making sure they know what they did wrong), this is no longer our inner beast coming out. If it does come out and we punish our children because of our lack of self-control, then that person isn't fit to be a parent until after therapy. That's what I think anyway.

 

[Sterling]

Abuse can be all kinds of things. Pain, by itself is either physical or psychological; the act of hitting creates both. You hit a sentient being, and not only do you push a physical stress towards its consciousness, but also its mental and psychological capacities. Children aren't exactly most perceptive towards which actions count for which ideas. Again, I stress hitting does NOT equate to fixing a problem. It is only a placebo effect of sorts. We hit a child, he obeys and we think we are doing the right thing, but in essence, we are planting the idea that punishment is essential to learning, which it most certainly is not. Because sooner or later, that child will grow up and more than likely will have the same twisted sense of right/wrong and the idea that punishment is always the answer.

I can accept that there is no easy answer, but I will continue to believe that this form of "discipline" most certainly is NOT the right way to do things.

Like I said I can accept personal decisions, but as it stands I do not believe that proper administration of this punishment, and a good stern talking to about how things work in the house is a big deal. Sure what you say could be detrimental if it was not accompanied by a sit down and explanation. Which it seems many parents make such a mistake. Also doing the punishment outside of the house is not good at all. What my mother did is a great example of how you should treat tantrums at stores and such: I threw a fit over some toy at Toys R Us. My mom told me to stop it, and if I didn't she was going to walk out of the store without me. She did, and she waited by the entrance for me to get over it. Perfect example of how you don't have to hit someone for an 'Attitude Adjustment'.

 

[ineap09]

I threw a fit over some toy at Toys R Us. My mom told me to stop it, and if I didn't she was going to walk out of the store without me. She did, and she waited by the entrance for me to get over it. Perfect example of how you don't have to hit someone for an 'Attitude Adjustment'.

Haha, that's great! That's really seems like an excellent solution for the situation. I'm taking notes.

QUOTEAlso doing the punishment outside of the house is not good at all.

Also, I completely agree that spanking should not be out of the house. +1

 

[Shinigami357]

Well, that depends on the person. Generally speaking, lessons derived from personal experience tends to be one of the best way to learn. Of course, we can't allow all lessons to be learned that way, so there's always learning from association or interaction with others. The most important people to associate and interact with being parents, of course, and hitting a child would be detrimental toward that goal, I think you'd agree. Then there's learning from instruction or precedence, because humans, as a species tend to face the same basic challenges throughout history, and as such, when a person or verifiable historical record offers enlightenment in such cases, it wold be best to listen that we may learn.

There's a lot more ways, all of which can be achieved without the need for physical (and in extension, psychological) battering of any sort.

Okay, so let's say your kid throws rocks at a car or something destructive like that. You would first tell them to not do it, right? What if they don't listen to you? How do they learn to obey you, their parent? You would have to punish them for not obeying you, right? In the lesson to learn to obey you, would the lesson be derived in personal experience? To me, if you spank your child for disobeying, and they know that you are not spanking them in anger, but as a consequence for wrong, then they would associate pain with disobedience, and that could serve as their personal experience(wow, I used a lot of conjunctions in this sentence). If you do not use pain as a punishment, what would you use? Would you take away their favorite toy? Would you make it so that they can't watch their favorite TV show for a week? These, to me, don't seem as effective as pain. Will they stop disobeying you because they no longer have their toy?

To me, there are indeed many ways in which children should learn, but direct disobedience(in regards to wrong and right) is very strong. It needs to be ingrained in them that that is the ultimate wrong, therefore, the ultimate punishment.

The most important people to associate and interact with being parents, of course, and hitting a child would be detrimental toward that goal, I think you'd agree.
I believe that the only way that physical punishment would be detrimental toward that goal, would be if the child didn't understand that the pain was a consequence for disobedience. I can see that if they don't, they would fear the parent instead of the consequence which would indeed be very detrimental to the important relationship of the two, but if they only fear the consequence, and not the parent, then I do not see anything detrimental, but instead, that may make the relationship better with the child knowing that the parent loves them enough to make sure they be the best person they can be(in other words, do right, avoid wrong).

QUOTE

Then there's learning from instruction or precedence, because humans, as a species tend to face the same basic challenges throughout history, and as such, when a person or verifiable historical record offers enlightenment in such cases, it wold be best to listen that we may learn.

It takes time before the child has enough maturity to listen to someone or something like that without the need for fear of consequence.

The main thing I want to know from you, is how would you make your child learn to not disobey you(in regards to right and wrong)?

P.S. I agree with everything Argentum Vir just said.

There are various ways to circumvent that problem, and the way so many people miss it is shocking. For example, one can always appeal to the child's sense of empathy. A child has the unnatural capacity (unlike adults) to feel for the other person. ask him " how would you feel if some did the same thing to you? how would you feel if you were in his situation?" etc etc. A child will always try to understand that such a thing is wrong, that the direct consequence of his action can affect others. again, I will repeat that in my opinion, hitting a child is a placebo effect devised to make parents feel like they are doing something. The consequences of an action need not be punishment for a person, because someone has already been hurt by it, why add to the overall suffering? Show him he is wrong, make him feel it. That's the way you communicate consequences to a child, not through some twisted, iron hand philosophy that only serves to complicate matters.

Seriously, consider it. A person's empathy is a better teaching tool than years and years of constant hitting. Think about what you'd feel if you make a mistake when didn't know better and got duly punished for it. Let me tell you, it would hurt you a lot.



PS
I would like to duly apologize to mods for multi-posting in rapid succession. I can't fit all these quotes in one post. Whew, debating 2 people at once takes a toll on you.

 

[Shinigami357]

Abuse can be all kinds of things. Pain, by itself is either physical or psychological; the act of hitting creates both. You hit a sentient being, and not only do you push a physical stress towards its consciousness, but also its mental and psychological capacities. Children aren't exactly most perceptive towards which actions count for which ideas. Again, I stress hitting does NOT equate to fixing a problem. It is only a placebo effect of sorts. We hit a child, he obeys and we think we are doing the right thing, but in essence, we are planting the idea that punishment is essential to learning, which it most certainly is not. Because sooner or later, that child will grow up and more than likely will have the same twisted sense of right/wrong and the idea that punishment is always the answer.

I can accept that there is no easy answer, but I will continue to believe that this form of "discipline" most certainly is NOT the right way to do things.

Like I said I can accept personal decisions, but as it stands I do not believe that proper administration of this punishment, and a good stern talking to about how things work in the house is a big deal. Sure what you say could be detrimental if it was not accompanied by a sit down and explanation. Which it seems many parents make such a mistake. Also doing the punishment outside of the house is not good at all. What my mother did is a great example of how you should treat tantrums at stores and such: I threw a fit over some toy at Toys R Us. My mom told me to stop it, and if I didn't she was going to walk out of the store without me. She did, and she waited by the entrance for me to get over it. Perfect example of how you don't have to hit someone for an 'Attitude Adjustment'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the title/OP asking about belting/spanking by itself? He cleared it up 6 pages into the discussion (i.e. after i started making my point). I was under the impression we were in a discussion based on that idea.