Child Abuse/Corporal Punishment Discussion

[DBJ-II]

Like what? What privileges are you going to revoke? It's useless. If you'd smack him around a little and embarrass him infront of all the other kids, that'll work.

All that's going to do is cause resentment towards you. You could have those kids eat alone during lunch for bad behavior, removing their phones, and many other things.

I'm talking about teens who are like 13+. You can't enforce anything of what you're suggesting without having the option to get physical if necessary. These kids need a structure similarly to the military, with clear rules and if you refuse to follow them you're superior has the possibility to make your life miserable.

[The East Marches]

Excerpt from a previous post I made





The moral of this story is that sometimes force is indeed needed. Not everybody is raised or can be raised in the same manner. It's best to leave those things to the parents.

I'm not even sure if the parents should do that, however the schools should definitely not do such things.

Parents should raise their kid as they see fit. We already have laws against "A Child Called It" tier abuse. I do agree that schools should not discipline kids in such a manner. That's the parent's responsibility not the school.

[Thermodolia]

All that's going to do is cause resentment towards you. You could have those kids eat alone during lunch for bad behavior, removing their phones, and many other things.

I'm talking about teens who are like 13+. You can't enforce anything of what you're suggesting without having the option to get physical if necessary. These kids need a structure similarly to the military, with clear rules and if you refuse to follow them you're superior has the possibility to make your life miserable.

No those kids DO NOT need something like military at all!

[Giovenith]

All that's going to do is cause resentment towards you. You could have those kids eat alone during lunch for bad behavior, removing their phones, and many other things.

I'm talking about teens who are like 13+. You can't enforce anything of what you're suggesting without having the option to get physical if necessary. These kids need a structure similarly to the military, with clear rules and if you refuse to follow them you're superior has the possibility to make your life miserable.

The only reason you should have the option to get physical is if your teenager is actually likely to physically attack you and you must do it in self-defense, in which case they likely need professional psychiatric intervention as it is a symptom of deeper-seated issues, not to be beaten in return. Actual studies even say that such a response actually makes the behavior worse because you are teaching them that violence can and should be responded to with more violence, not that you are "the superior." Children are not dogs, they do not learn anything via "superior and inferior" hierarchy, a human child is literally neurologically hardwired to learn by imitation. Monkey-see monkey-do. If you are not at risk of being attacked by your teen, non-violent traditional parenting can and does work just fine.

And there's a reason we don't allow people under 18 to be sent into the military.

[Thermodolia]

I'm not even sure if the parents should do that, however the schools should definitely not do such things.

Parents should raise their kid as they see fit. We already have laws against "A Child Called It" tier abuse. I do agree that schools should not discipline kids in such a manner. That's the parent's responsibility not the school.

As someone who seen abuse upfront, I don't think parents should have that right

[Salandriagado]

All that's going to do is cause resentment towards you. You could have those kids eat alone during lunch for bad behavior, removing their phones, and many other things.

I'm talking about teens who are like 13+. You can't enforce anything of what you're suggesting without having the option to get physical if necessary. These kids need a structure similarly to the military, with clear rules and if you refuse to follow them you're superior has the possibility to make your life miserable.

None of the above is true. Do you have any actual experience of what you are talking about?

[Norstal]

All that's going to do is cause resentment towards you. You could have those kids eat alone during lunch for bad behavior, removing their phones, and many other things.

I'm talking about teens who are like 13+. You can't enforce anything of what you're suggesting without having the option to get physical if necessary. These kids need a structure similarly to the military, with clear rules and if you refuse to follow them you're superior has the possibility to make your life miserable.

If you were my parent I would just run away. Good luck trying to climb the stairs when you're old.

[The East Marches]

Parents should raise their kid as they see fit. We already have laws against "A Child Called It" tier abuse. I do agree that schools should not discipline kids in such a manner. That's the parent's responsibility not the school.

As someone who seen abuse upfront, I don't think parents should have that right

Of course you don't because you can only see things thought the lense of your own trauma. I don't blame you for that because I understand why you would think the way you do. My understanding of your position does not make me believe you are any less wrong.

[Salandriagado]

I'm not even sure if the parents should do that, however the schools should definitely not do such things.

Parents should raise their kid as they see fit. We already have laws against "A Child Called It" tier abuse. I do agree that schools should not discipline kids in such a manner. That's the parent's responsibility not the school.

Why do you get to assault someone just because they happen to be your kid?

[Trygg]

When somebody hits you, you usually want to hit something back. Corporal punishment is a great way to make the house an unpredictably violent place for everyone.

[New Axiom]

This is bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. Remember back in the days when EVERYONE WAS SPANKED? Even with these things called BELTS?! There is also a VERY clear distinction between corporal punishment and spanking. Corporal punishment is stuff like cutting off a finger or flogging or some such. I was sparked as a kid, and my best friend was NEVER spanked becuase his parents didn't believe in it either. By the time we were in 11th grade, he had been in at least five fights a year and even got suspended. Me? Only two.

So yea, this is bullshit.

[Giovenith]

I'm not even sure if the parents should do that, however the schools should definitely not do such things.

Parents should raise their kid as they see fit. We already have laws against "A Child Called It" tier abuse. I do agree that schools should not discipline kids in such a manner. That's the parent's responsibility not the school.

The reason we have laws against " 'A Child Called It' tier abuse" is because it has been objectively demonstrated that that kind of behavior actively harms the child.

The "lesser" forms of abuse we are discussing have also repeatedly been demonstrated to be harmful.

Why do you hold this double standard?

[The East Marches]

Parents should raise their kid as they see fit. We already have laws against "A Child Called It" tier abuse. I do agree that schools should not discipline kids in such a manner. That's the parent's responsibility not the school.

Why do you get to assault someone just because they happen to be your kid?

Smacking your kid upside the head because they were doing something dangerous or being a fuck does not equal assault. If a child is the parent's responsibility then they have the right to raise it as they see fit. If you want cookie cutter kids all raised the same, turn the child over to the state and take child rearing out of the realm of the parent.

[Free Missouri]

Punishment should be proportional to the incident. As a kid, I was only spanked when I did something that was particularly egregious (stuff that, in certain conditions, would've put myself, or others at risk), and I think that in those cases, it's entirely and perfectly ok, and, in my opinion, preferred. When I'm a parent, I'm probably going to follow that standard unless I live in a SJW-Nazi-ish state. I'd draw the line at 10-11, that's when, at least when I'm a parent, I would/will switch entirely to punishments of revoking privileges, verbal rebukes, etc. etc. etc. things that are more effective on older-aged children.

[The East Marches]

Parents should raise their kid as they see fit. We already have laws against "A Child Called It" tier abuse. I do agree that schools should not discipline kids in such a manner. That's the parent's responsibility not the school.

The reason we have laws against " 'A Child Called It' tier abuse" is because it has been objectively demonstrated that that kind of behavior actively harms the child.

The "lesser" forms of abuse we are discussing have also repeatedly been demonstrated to be harmful.

Why do you hold this double standard?

It's not a double standard to think that a spanking is different than feeding a kid drain fluid. These are two totally different levels of things. One is actual abuse, the other disciplinary measures taken by the parent. To equate the two is a joke.

[Norstal]

This is bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. Remember back in the days when EVERYONE WAS SPANKED? Even with these things called BELTS?! There is also a VERY clear distinction between corporal punishment and spanking. Corporal punishment is stuff like cutting off a finger or flogging or some such. I was sparked as a kid, and my best friend was NEVER spanked becuase his parents didn't believe in it either. By the time we were in 11th grade, he had been in at least five fights a year and even got suspended. Me? Only two.

So yea, this is bullshit.

I was never spanked and I got into 0 fights.

How do you figure people were never spanked anyways. It's not like you actively look at their butts for bruises or something.

[Conserative Morality]

It's not a double standard to think that a spanking is different than feeding a kid drain fluid. These are two totally different levels of things. One is actual abuse, the other disciplinary measures taken by the parent. To equate the two is a joke.

To equate the two? Sure. To compare them? Not at all. Both are pointless displays of violence born of the idea that if you physically harm your child enough, they'll do what you want.

Do I think parents should go to jail for spanking? Not necessarily. Do I think it is a concern and should be taken into account when considering the suitability of a parent to hold custody of their child? Definitely.

[Salandriagado]

Why do you get to assault someone just because they happen to be your kid?

Smacking your kid upside the head because they were doing something dangerous or being a fuck does not equal assault. If a child is the parent's responsibility then they have the right to raise it as they see fit. If you want cookie cutter kids all raised the same, turn the child over to the state and take child rearing out of the realm of the parent.

Yes, it does. If I did it to an adult, it would be assault. Why does it stop being assault just because it's a kid?

[New Axiom]

This is bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. Remember back in the days when EVERYONE WAS SPANKED? Even with these things called BELTS?! There is also a VERY clear distinction between corporal punishment and spanking. Corporal punishment is stuff like cutting off a finger or flogging or some such. I was sparked as a kid, and my best friend was NEVER spanked becuase his parents didn't believe in it either. By the time we were in 11th grade, he had been in at least five fights a year and even got suspended. Me? Only two.

So yea, this is bullshit.

I was never spanked and I got into 0 fights.

How do you figure people were never spanked anyways. It's not like you actively look at their butts for bruises or something.

You could just be saying that to give the argument more leverage.

A hyper religious zealot family who believed spanking-or other physical violence-wins a direct ticket to hell? I doubt they spank their kids. My freind didn't believe that, clearly.

[Conserative Morality]

You could just be saying that to give the argument more leverage.

You caught him. He's lying. Everyone who wasn't spanked as a child got into a shitton of fights because they weren't taught that violence is the best way to solve your problems.

Er, or something like that.

[The East Marches]

It's not a double standard to think that a spanking is different than feeding a kid drain fluid. These are two totally different levels of things. One is actual abuse, the other disciplinary measures taken by the parent. To equate the two is a joke.

To equate the two? Sure. To compare them? Not at all. Both are pointless displays of violence born of the idea that if you physically harm your child enough, they'll do what you want.

Do I think parents should go to jail for spanking? Not necessarily. Do I think it is a concern and should be taken into account when considering the suitability of a parent to hold custody of their child? Definitely.

Do you think that violence works as a means of enforcing your will? That seems to be the underlying question.

Spanking is not uncommon nor should it be considered child abuse or impact a parent's suitability for custody. It is a tool like anything else. Employed properly it does in fact get results.

[Giovenith]

The reason we have laws against " 'A Child Called It' tier abuse" is because it has been objectively demonstrated that that kind of behavior actively harms the child.

The "lesser" forms of abuse we are discussing have also repeatedly been demonstrated to be harmful.

Why do you hold this double standard?

It's not a double standard to think that a spanking is different than feeding a kid drain fluid. These are two totally different levels of things. One is actual abuse, the other disciplinary measures taken by the parent. To equate the two is a joke.

I'm not equating the two as the same. I am saying that regardless of how bad which ever one is, both have been demonstrated by countless scientific studies and research to have a long-lasting, overall negative effect on children's health and future behavior. "I could be doing something worse" is not an excuse for bad actions of any degree.

So why are you okay with an action that has been objectively shown to do way more harm than good to children?

When I'm a parent, I'm probably going to follow that standard unless I live in a SJW-Nazi-ish state.

"Everyone who holds to a more progressive position than me is an SJW" - Check ✓

[Salandriagado]

To equate the two? Sure. To compare them? Not at all. Both are pointless displays of violence born of the idea that if you physically harm your child enough, they'll do what you want.

Do I think parents should go to jail for spanking? Not necessarily. Do I think it is a concern and should be taken into account when considering the suitability of a parent to hold custody of their child? Definitely.

Do you think that violence works as a means of enforcing your will? That seems to be the underlying question.

Spanking is not uncommon nor should it be considered child abuse or impact a parent's suitability for custody. It is a tool like anything else. Employed properly it does in fact get results.

No, I don't. Not long term, and not in general, at least. That isn't a relevant question, though. Enforcing your will is not the concern here: the wellbeing of the child is.

[Norstal]

I was never spanked and I got into 0 fights.

How do you figure people were never spanked anyways. It's not like you actively look at their butts for bruises or something.

You could just be saying that to give the argument more leverage.

Pot meet kettle.

A hyper religious zealot family who believed spanking-or other physical violence-wins a direct ticket to hell? I doubt they spank their kids. My freind didn't believe that, clearly.

Hyper religious zealot families are families that I would think spank their kids. Discipline is not violence after all.

[Free Missouri]

It's not a double standard to think that a spanking is different than feeding a kid drain fluid. These are two totally different levels of things. One is actual abuse, the other disciplinary measures taken by the parent. To equate the two is a joke.

To equate the two? Sure. To compare them? Not at all. Both are pointless displays of violence born of the idea that if you physically harm your child enough, they'll do what you want.

Do I think parents should go to jail for spanking? Not necessarily. Do I think it is a concern and should be taken into account when considering the suitability of a parent to hold custody of their child? Definitely.

As I said earlier, Punishment should be proportional to the incident.

I was spanked only when I did things that could've put myself or others at risk (running across the road/parking lot/etc. etc. without anyone else= I was spanked, doing stuff on the four wheeler that, on larger four wheelers, would've likely ended with me flipping and getting hurt/killed= Spanked, aiming an airsoft gun or cap gun at someone= spanked, etc. etc. etc.)