Current Events > "Parents should never spank their kids."

(+) Yeah! (+)

Howl posted...

Lmfao, this type of thinking is exactly what lead to a generation of teenagers eating tide pods. They literally have never suffered any consequences for their actions and now they cannot determine what they should and shouldnot do.

Pretty sure the kids eating Tide Pods are the ones who suffered head injuries from childhood beatings.
---

Another thing I found interesting about the article was the researchers deliberate usage of the word associated to purposely mislead people about the results of their findings. You know why they never said there is a causal relationship that exists between spanking and the 17 categories that were investigated? Because there is no eveidence that suggests so. They use the word associated because that requires no eveidence. Using the word associated literally means nothing. For example a person could say "people who live in Chicago are associated with higher crime rates" and that would be exactly as true as the statements they made here.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Sami1000 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sami1000 posted...

Bullying should lead to getting expelled.

Kicking children out of school benefits no one. That is not sensible discipline. You're not teaching a kid a lesson. You're damning him for life for being a shithead kid.

The kid will go to another school and hopefully remembers what happens if he starts bullying someone. Bullying can have severe consequences, you know. Should another kid suffer, so that the bully won't have to suffer?

What is with these either or arguments in this topic? "Kick him out or let him keep bullying other kids. It's a no brainer to expel him!"

When i talk about bullying i talk about stuff like stealing stuff from you, hitting your head hard, ridiculing you etc. Doing stuff like that on daily basis is very bad. If the bully is just mean who does name calling or little stuff then of course that doesn't mean he gets expelled.
---

knutjob posted...

My daughter was literally doing this today. I took her off the chair, sat her in the corner and told her it was dangerous. She didn't do it again.

I feel this is the disconnect. Despite popular belief, kid's personalities cannot be molded. Some kids will listen when told things. But don't get too full of yourself by thinking it was because of your "expert parenting" skills.

Other kids are legitimately bad. Some will NOT simply stop if you reason.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless on both sides. If simply doing time outs or taking away privileges worked, spanking wouldn't be needed. Very rarely do parents use spanking as a first resort.

Nor is blind spanking the only way to go about it, as TC is trying to explain.
---

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.

Proverbs 22... 15, I think.
---

Sami1000 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sami1000 posted...

Bullying should lead to getting expelled.

Kicking children out of school benefits no one. That is not sensible discipline. You're not teaching a kid a lesson. You're damning him for life for being a shithead kid.

The kid will go to another school and hopefully remembers what happens if he starts bullying someone. Bullying can have severe consequences, you know. Should another kid suffer, so that the bully won't have to suffer?

I'm actually an example when it comes to arguments about bullying and consequences... just an anecdote that is, but I might as well share.

I've always been an angry person. Back in early elementary school, for reasons I don't really know, I just had it out for this one girl in a younger grade. She hadn't done anything. I just had this misguided hatred toward her, like misplaced anger I didn't understand and she happened to have the misfortune of it being directed at her for reasons I don't know. I bullied her. I was spoken to. I didn't stop. I don't think it ever got out of hand beyond just general dickery and threatening/intimidating behavior, but it was escalating.

After having gotten in trouble inconsequentially a few times, I had a sit down with my parents and the principal. I don't remember it exactly, but I remember getting the impression that this poor girl was terrified of me, that I had no explanation for what I had been doing, and that if I continued doing was I was doing, I would make the situation exponentially worse for myself. I wouldn't get away with any bullying incident and there would be consequences. I got the sense that by continuing with that behavior, I'd be forcing the school's hand to impose consequences on me that would be hindering and suppressive. I don't know if I had the insight at that age to think of things like incarceration, but I get the sense that in a way, I did get that. I remember arriving at the conclusion, through this sit down, that for my own sake, I could not continue to act that way, I had to stop. Whatever was said got through to me. I never bothered that girl again or bullied anyone else.

I've never had a sense of discipline. I've perpetually responded negatively to any form of punishment, from best case scenario feigning obliviousness to worse case serious retaliation, but thanks to that one conversation, I've always had a strong sense of consequence keeping me grounded and keeping me out of trouble. I'm morally gray, I'm not big on the law or authority except when it's convenient for me, I've actively led bosses to be nervous/apprehensive about trying to punish me at any level (granted I wasn't doing anything fucked up beyond not taking shit from them)... but at the same time, never been fired, never been arrested, never even been in a fight (been hit a few times but never swung back. No harm done either way).
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Sami1000 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sami1000 posted...

Bullying should lead to getting expelled.

Kicking children out of school benefits no one. That is not sensible discipline. You're not teaching a kid a lesson. You're damning him for life for being a shithead kid.

The kid will go to another school and hopefully remembers what happens if he starts bullying someone. Bullying can have severe consequences, you know. Should another kid suffer, so that the bully won't have to suffer?

I'm actually an example when it comes to arguments about bullying and consequences... just an anecdote that is, but I might as well share.

I've always been an angry person. Back in early elementary school, for reasons I don't really know, I just had it out for this one girl in a younger grade. She hadn't done anything. I just had this misguided hatred toward her, like misplaced anger I didn't understand and she happened to have the misfortune of it being directed at her for reasons I don't know. I bullied her. I was spoken to. I didn't stop. I don't think it ever got out of hand beyond just general dickery and threatening/intimidating behavior, but it was escalating.

After having gotten in trouble inconsequentially a few times, I had a sit down with my parents and the principal. I don't remember it exactly, but I remember getting the impression that this poor girl was terrified of me, that I had no explanation for what I had been doing, and that if I continued doing was I was doing, I would make the situation exponentially worse for myself. I wouldn't get away with any bullying incident and there would be consequences. I got the sense that by continuing with that behavior, I'd be forcing the school's hand to impose consequences on me that would be hindering and suppressive. I don't know if I had the insight at that age to think of things like incarceration, but I get the sense that in a way, I did get that. I remember arriving at the conclusion, through this sit down, that for my own sake, I could not continue to act that way, I had to stop. Whatever was said got through to me. I never bothered that girl again or bullied anyone else.

I've never had a sense of discipline. I've perpetually responded negatively to any form of punishment, from best case scenario feigning obliviousness to worse case serious retaliation, but thanks to that one conversation, I've always had a strong sense of consequence keeping me grounded and keeping me out of trouble. I'm morally gray, I'm not big on the law or authority except when it's convenient for me, I've actively led bosses to be nervous/apprehensive about trying to punish me at any level (granted I wasn't doing anything fucked up beyond not taking shit from them)... but at the same time, never been fired, never been arrested, never even been in a fight (been hit a few times but never swung back. No harm done either way).

Thanks for sharing. It was interesting to read, you kinda had life changing moment there.
---

I believe physical discipline is suitable depending on how it's applied. Young children are very impressionable, and asserting yourself when they misbehave - in extreme scenarios - would give them enough incentive to not misbehave again. I wouldn't hit my child the same way I was practically ragdolled as a kid, but a feathertouch approach in comparison - or you know, the old fashioned spank on the lap.

It's very important to note that what manner of physical discipline you use is what could yield the better results. When discussing "hit vs don't hit your kids" debates, people tend to forget this. There's a difference between spanking and straight beating them.

By the time of adolescence, they'd likely have a enough cognitive comprehension that a proper sit-down with them would work as a substitute for spanking, along with taking their things away as punishment. It's something you'd really have get through their heads, lest you run into the problems most parents seem to have with raising their children nowadays, including a rebellious phase if you continue to apply physical discipline - which is not limited to pent up aggression, and likely to take out on others since they'll believe violence to be as good a answer to their problems as their parents.

Reversing this is situation you get with say my younger brother and I. I was beaten more times than I can remember when I young, sometimes for things I wasn't sure I did. I lived with my uncle and aunt at some point, and they were even more strict than my mom. By the time I was a teen, I developed a habit of getting into the least amount of trouble as possible, and only got in trouble for other things (like low grades and whatnot).

My brother was rarely if ever discipline as a kid, and by the became a teen, he got into more trouble which lend to physical punishments, which eventually bred into an aggressive, hostile person.
---

I did yeah. Weird thing is I never really thought about it as so profound before. I had thought of it as a foundation for my sense of consequence and right and wrong, but it hasn't really seemed profound before now when I was typing it up. At the same time, hadn't really thought of it in the past few years and other things have happened in the past few years that in this conversation have amplified it and been amplified by it, so that association plays a role here.

I guess what it boils down to is that if I was already doing what I was doing and was that far gone... if I was having consequences imposed upon me, physical or otherwise, that I could have blamed others for (even if misguided) or associated with sources other than myself (again, even if misguided), I likely would have doubled down on the self-destructive behavior out of misguided blame. In all likelihood, this would have led to something jarring that would have straightened me out, but I'm glad it didn't come to that and I learned what I needed to learn before it got to that point.
---

Edit since I was in a rush while typing this (now I have make another post since I ran out of time to edit), but he was disciplined the most while we were with our uncle/aunt during childhood. I'd argue they methods were more effective than our mother's, although my brother tends to act out the most when we started living with her again. Our mother also became more lax so he definitely had more "dominance" in the household (demanding stuff, throwing tantrums when he didn't have his way etc.)

I also shouldn't leave out that I had my moments of defiance with her and still hold some resentment of my own, but I wouldn't say I turned out all that bad. Don't mean to paint my brother in a bad light either. I still love him, and he's pretty outgoing most the time. I think what set us apart was that he was naturally more violent than me.

My brother was rarely if ever discipline as a kid, and by the became a teen, he got into more trouble which lend to physical punishments, which eventually bred into an aggressive, hostile person.

I wanted to say defiant, not hostile.
---

Why is it all the ****ty posters on CE who say "I was spanked and turned out fine". We've seen you. You didn't turn out fine.
---

Probably been brought up but spanking/hitting just leads to an environment of fear and distrust that only reinforces feelings of helplessness and aggression.
---

supercurrymax posted...

Probably been brought up but spanking/hitting just leads to an environment of fear and distrust that only reinforces feelings of helplessness and aggression.

Ok, just ignore all of my posts and make sweeping generalizations about all forms of spanking. These are the people who claim that science supports what they're saying. Lol
---

I don't care if it's bad or not, I just can't hit my daughter. My girlfriend tried smacking her in front of me once over some dumb shit and she ended up going through an ikea coffee table for it.

I grew up getting the shit beat out of me daily, not gonna deal with that shit now.
---

darkprince45 posted...

I was spanked, smacked, hit with a belt when I was a kid. Never got in trouble.

My younger brother never hit or anything and he's a fucking terror of a teenager. Literally one of those kids the tide pod generation exemplifies

And literally the same with my girlfriend. Her younger brother is 22 and still lives at home with no drivers license, friends, or job

cool anecdotal evidence bro
---

I believe it's okay to spank babies, but stop once they reach an age where you can sit down and tell them why they're not allowed to do certain things like sit down with them and discuss the reasons the thing they're doing is wrong and what are the consequences of said wrong things.
---

I was never spanked or physically disciplined in ANY regard, but my parents held me very accountable in different ways like groundings and taking away toys/games. They also pretty much never made an idle threat and calling their bluff got my shit taken away every single time. Learned pretty quick to act right.

Instilling discipline is 100% necessary. Some kind of punishment system is necessary. Physical punishment, I dont think is necessary tbh.
---

averagejoel posted...

darkprince45 posted...

I was spanked, smacked, hit with a belt when I was a kid. Never got in trouble.

My younger brother never hit or anything and he's a fucking terror of a teenager. Literally one of those kids the tide pod generation exemplifies

And literally the same with my girlfriend. Her younger brother is 22 and still lives at home with no drivers license, friends, or job

cool anecdotal evidence bro

Yeah, i also knew one girl who was shot in the stomach when she was a kid, and one girl who was molested by her step dad when she was a kid. Both turned out as good people, but i wouldn't fucking tell anyone that either of those things are good or harmless.
---

Prestoff posted...

I believe it's okay to spank babies, but stop once they reach an age where you can sit down and tell them why they're not allowed to do certain things like sit down with them and discuss the reasons the thing they're doing is wrong and what are the consequences of said wrong things.

How does a baby even understand why it's being hit to not replicate that behavior? Who's the person putting this to the test by hitting babies?

If they're even not old enough for you to explain to them what they did wrong or understand things, why would THAT be the age it's okay to hit them?
---

Howl posted...

Another thing I found interesting about the article was the researchers deliberate usage of the word associated to purposely mislead people about the results of their findings. You know why they never said there is a causal relationship that exists between spanking and the 17 categories that were investigated? Because there is no eveidence that suggests so.

Just in case anyone takes this garbage seriously:
People don't report on causal relationships in social sciences because it's practically impossible to conclude. Holding a social science to the standard of causality is really fucking absurd considering it's next to impossible to show causality in most natural sciences.
---