Does Spanking kids Work?

[Iceweasel]

First, I was sloppy in my language. I meant to say "those who insist that physical punishment is required to rear children successfully" rather than "those who defend physical punishment". IOW my objection is not with parents using and defending physical punishment, but with those who argue that it is required to rear children properly.

I've always said it depends on the child. Good parents sometimes have troublesome kids for whatever reason. I agree with spanking in that case because if the kid doesn't learn to control himself then, he is going to learn it later when the consequences are bigger.

Most kids were spanked, so if they are undisciplined, spanking does not seem to correct them. I know of many highly successful, happy, self-confident, and productive individuals who were never physically disciplined as a child. You seem to persist in thinking that these people do not exist. Why do you spend so much effort trying to deny this existence? Does it threaten you to admit they exist?

I never said it. You have me mixed up with someone else.

Why are you defending the extremist position? And isn't this the very position you started your post with by accusing me of creating it as a straw man?

My extremist position is that there's a difference between spanking and beating.

 

[Pogo]

I have siblings. I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.

My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority. I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them. I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult. I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others. When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'. Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.". If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK. I can see your point. But as an occasional tool? I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.

I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it. It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that. The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want." That's it, just that.

The question is, do you want to impart that particular value? It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money. But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion. He can't if it's not part of his experience.

I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously. But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is. It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places. That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.

Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.

You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun? Think about it... it's the same psychological dynamic. The idea of bringing about an end by force. It's glaringly obvious to me.

Well, I thought we were discussing spanking, not switching.

Like I said, while I can see the connection, I find it an extremely tenuous one.

"spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.

I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'. If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking. In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.

 

[eflatminor]

Where the HELL did I do that??

Didn't say you did, just saying don't. Try to calm yourself now. It'll be alright.

Uh.... yyyeah. Well then don't fix my coffee for me. And stop driving my car.
That makes as much sense and just as dishonest.



I haven't analyzed "results" at all. That's your insertion. I'm just analyzing the nature of violence, i.e. the status quo. Your strawman is outstanding in his field but doesn't work here.

If you choose to go with it in spite of that, that's your choice. Not mine.

I choose to go with what works. You're free to go with what feels right...because afterall, intentions are more important than results.

Again.... pick up your straw. I suspect you keep deflecting to this nebulous "results" thing because you can't debate the intrinsic value.

You're free to deny the results all rational people see, that's your right...and about what we've come to expect. Again, good luck raising that kid right.

 

[oldfart]

First, I was sloppy in my language. I meant to say "those who insist that physical punishment is required to rear children successfully" rather than "those who defend physical punishment". IOW my objection is not with parents using and defending physical punishment, but with those who argue that it is required to rear children properly.

I've always said it depends on the child. Good parents sometimes have troublesome kids for whatever reason. I agree with spanking in that case because if the kid doesn't learn to control himself then, he is going to learn it later when the consequences are bigger.

Most kids were spanked, so if they are undisciplined, spanking does not seem to correct them. I know of many highly successful, happy, self-confident, and productive individuals who were never physically disciplined as a child. You seem to persist in thinking that these people do not exist. Why do you spend so much effort trying to deny this existence? Does it threaten you to admit they exist?

I never said it. You have me mixed up with someone else.

Why are you defending the extremist position? And isn't this the very position you started your post with by accusing me of creating it as a straw man?

My extremist position is that there's a difference between spanking and beating.

In which case I have seriously confused myself as to who has posted what. I do that with some frequency. My apologies.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, I thought we were discussing spanking, not switching.

Like I said, while I can see the connection, I find it an extremely tenuous one.

"spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.

I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'. If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking. In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.

I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific. It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context. For me at least, anything else is not a spank.

 

[asterism]

First, thanks for a well thought out post. I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over. I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents. And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.

I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did). Most just stop there. In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment. The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue). I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old. This parenting style even worked for him. My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have. The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them. If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?

The vast majority of the "professionals" I know of are completely unqualified, most don't even have kids themselves. They are all theory and zero practical application.

Well, I certainly am not going to try to defend all professions or all professionals. But I would suggest you try to visit or volunteer at a special education class. You would have an opportunity to see the practice close up.

I have, that's where I have formed my opinion (that and lots of volunteering in charities for at risk kids). They have good intentions and education in theory but that's it. There's a huge difference between teaching and/or mentoring a child and raising one. The good ones understand that distinction but most think they are better parents than most parents despite never having that responsibility themselves.

 

[Pogo]

Didn't say you did, just saying don't. Try to calm yourself now. It'll be alright.

Uh.... yyyeah. Well then don't fix my coffee for me. And stop driving my car.
That makes as much sense and just as dishonest.



I haven't analyzed "results" at all. That's your insertion. I'm just analyzing the nature of violence, i.e. the status quo. Your strawman is outstanding in his field but doesn't work here.

I choose to go with what works. You're free to go with what feels right...because afterall, intentions are more important than results.

Again.... pick up your straw. I suspect you keep deflecting to this nebulous "results" thing because you can't debate the intrinsic value.

You're free to deny the results all rational people see, that's your right...and about what we've come to expect. Again, good luck raising that kid right.

I'm also free to observe that I haven't even opined on all the straw you've stuffed in my mouth. Then again you're free to pretend I did if you can't deal with the argument on its own terms. Again, good luck raising that strawman.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I thought we were discussing spanking, not switching.

Like I said, while I can see the connection, I find it an extremely tenuous one.

"spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.

I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'. If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking. In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.

I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific. It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context. For me at least, anything else is not a spank.

If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time

I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching". It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called. Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).

Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be. I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.

 

[BobPlumb]

Sure they would. And they do. Did you not have siblings??



You're trying to stretch the point to fit. All I'm talking about is the violent approach. "Timeouts", denial of privileges and the like are unrelated here.



When you're down to "it's just the way of things" I think you've run out of argument. Any human of any age --let alone animals-- can understand the concept that "this outside entity is a superior force and will hurt me if I do X". You don't need intellectual development to figure that out. And these equivalencies take root in a young mind long before abstract thought can develop to pick it apart.

Ever see a dog that's been abused? Same thing. Abstract intellect not required.



You could say those things, and they would all be logical. That doesn't mean we cannot draw a line and forbid ourselves to ever eat a plant. What we speak of here is all relative; where we draw the line. The line shifts over time, obviously. Many of us posting here had acts visited on us by our parents that today would land them in jail. But that doesn't mean they were the right thing in their time. Any more than torturing "witches" was the right thing in its time. Again, taking an analogy to extremes, the reason for doing so being that it makes the point more obvious.

I have siblings. I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.

My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority. I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them. I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult. I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others. When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'. Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.". If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK. I can see your point. But as an occasional tool? I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.

I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it. It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that. The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want." That's it, just that.

The question is, do you want to impart that particular value? It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money. But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion. He can't if it's not part of his experience.

I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously. But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is. It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places. That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.

Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.

You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun? Think about it... it's the same psychological dynamic. The idea of bringing about an end by force. It's glaringly obvious to me.

Do we not have a similar parallel if the kid is cleaning his room under threat of taking his x-box away or being grounded for a month? Of course, if the kid is old enough to be expected to clean his room spanking or use of a switch would not be the dicipline tool of first choice even for those that beleive spanking has a place in a parent's toolbox of disipline tools.

 

[Montrovant]

"spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.

I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'. If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking. In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.

I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific. It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context. For me at least, anything else is not a spank.

If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time

I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching". It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called. Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).

Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be. I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.

Yeah, we've been operating under different definitions.

I'm not entirely certain I understand your last paragraph. Are you saying that you don't believe that someone can spank only occasionally and with a minimum of pain, with no lasting physical effects, and not do more? I got the impression you are saying if someone spanks the way I think of it, it inevitably leads to the much more violent and dangerous types that you were speaking of.

 

[Pogo]

I have siblings. I fought with my older brother a ridiculous amount, no matter which of us was bigger or stronger at the time.

My argument was not that 'it's just the way of things' explains why spanking is good, instead I was using that as a description of how I think a young child's mind works regarding authority. I don't think, up until a certain point, that children think overly much about why their parents hold authority over them. I don't think that they are likely to reach the conclusion that might = right, even if it seems the only logical conclusion to an adult. I don't think they necessarily connect the relationship they have with parents or family to their relationships with others. When they do, I don't think it's on a level of might makes right; it's more likely to be something like 'grownups are in charge'. Again, I think you are assigning more adult thinking to small children than is usual.
So, if a child thinks, "Mommy will hurt me if I do X" it doesn't mean that child will think, "That is only bad because mommy will hurt me." or that the child will think, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want.". If there is abuse, if the only technique ever used to discipline is spanking, if that's the only message ever reinforced, OK. I can see your point. But as an occasional tool? I don't find it likely that a 5 year old makes the connections you do.

I'm not making those connections and neither necessarily is a child. I think you're overthinking it. It's not necessary to analyze the nature of authority and what parents are or all that. The message is far simpler, as you worded it, "Hurting someone is how you should get them to do what you want." That's it, just that.

The question is, do you want to impart that particular value? It will be later on when the child analyzes the world and maybe decides that based on his experiences, he's now going to beat up his schoolmates for their lunch money. But it started with that value, without which starting point he never reaches that conclusion. He can't if it's not part of his experience.

I draw the line in a different place than you do obviously. But if spanking and invasion are part of the same mindset, and the same logic makes squishing a bug, or killing a plant, or any kind of discipline at all part of the same mindset, then I'm not sure what your point is. It would seem to be that everyone pretty much has the same mindset and simply draws the line at different places. That's fine, but leads me to wonder why this discussion is occurring at all.

Oh, and I don't see how you can complain about me 'stretching the point to fit' in comparing time outs to spanking when you compared spanking to invading a country.

You don't see an obvious parallel between a kid cleaning his room under the end of a switch and bringing 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun? Think about it... it's the same psychological dynamic. The idea of bringing about an end by force. It's glaringly obvious to me.

Do we not have a similar parallel if the kid is cleaning his room under threat of taking his x-box away or being grounded for a month? Of course, if the kid is old enough to be expected to clean his room spanking or use of a switch would not be the dicipline tool of first choice even for those that beleive spanking has a place in a parent's toolbox of disipline tools.

No I don't think that's a similar parallel. The comparison may be a stretch but to entertain it here, the analogy to taking the game away might be a country imposing economic sanctions on another. That's entirely different from invading that country, just as taking the game away from the kid is entirely different from hitting him.

 

[Pogo]

I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific. It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context. For me at least, anything else is not a spank.

If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time

I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching". It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called. Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).

Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be. I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.

Yeah, we've been operating under different definitions.

I'm not entirely certain I understand your last paragraph. Are you saying that you don't believe that someone can spank only occasionally and with a minimum of pain, with no lasting physical effects, and not do more? I got the impression you are saying if someone spanks the way I think of it, it inevitably leads to the much more violent and dangerous types that you were speaking of.

I guess I'm saying I have a hard time believing such a thing actually exists in the real world -- as opposed to the abstract of a message board. Because what you described, hell I see baseball coaches do that to a player who just hit a single. That's a completely different thing from what I think of as 'spanking'.

I just don't believe humans are positively motivated by negatives. That about sums it up.

 

[FA_Q2]

The conclusion doesn't follow. Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force. Beating does. If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.



Obviously, that's the message. Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it. Some never reconcile.
It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place. This could be step one.

As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too. George Washington died from it. Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".

Such a blanket statement is rather inane though. That is not the only message that spanking can send and I think that declaring it so is completely off base. I have spanked my eldest three times and physical punishments do have their place though I don’t see many uses for term.

All three of those times were in direct relation to violent behavior – two to others and one in general while throwing a fit that would not be contained. The message is clear to him – violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.

Further, as pointed out through this thread, children are not of the same mold. They do not react the same to given discipline or reward. To state blankly that spanking leads to X is to completely gloss over this fact. Limiting a parent’s toolkit (other than abuse) without any knowledge of the child itself is asinine to say the least. I don’t pretend to know what is best for other parents and their children because I am well aware of the fact that I do NOT know what is best. I know that I don’t need to spank my youngest. I also know that my eldest needs something extra at times. They are each different and require different disciplinary actions. If that is so obvious within the same household within brothers I can only imagine how different others children may or may not be.

I don't think anyone suggested that "spanking = X in every child". I didn't read that. But you actually hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not, right here:

The message is clear to him – violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.

Exactly. That was the original point. It's a slippery slope and it's all downhill.

No, it’s not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation. Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson. That does not make it a slippery slope.


A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not. You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right. That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever. It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use. That does not mean that all children should be spanked. Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.

Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO. I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:

"spanking"... "switching"... "paddling"... "whipping" .... I just switched the verb for variety.

I have seen some in this thread propose that 'spanking' is not the same as 'beating'. If that's the case then perhaps I've never seen a spanking. In which case I have no idea what we're talking about.

I think I said before in this thread, although I'm not certain, I think spanking is pretty specific. It's an open handed hit on the bottom, at least in this context. For me at least, anything else is not a spank.

If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time

I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching". It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called. Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).

Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be. I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic at all. As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your ‘definition’ of spank is extremely uncommon. I haven’t heard of a parent requiring an ‘instrument’ like a belt for a generation. Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence. Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario. Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves. Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking. I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child – he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is. Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here. I don’t know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).

Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation. If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action. That is an action taken in anger and frustration. Most spankings are not taken in anger – they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child. Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.

 

[eflatminor]

Uh.... yyyeah. Well then don't fix my coffee for me. And stop driving my car.
That makes as much sense and just as dishonest.



I haven't analyzed "results" at all. That's your insertion. I'm just analyzing the nature of violence, i.e. the status quo. Your strawman is outstanding in his field but doesn't work here.



Again.... pick up your straw. I suspect you keep deflecting to this nebulous "results" thing because you can't debate the intrinsic value.

You're free to deny the results all rational people see, that's your right...and about what we've come to expect. Again, good luck raising that kid right.

I'm also free to observe that I haven't even opined on all the straw you've stuffed in my mouth. Then again you're free to pretend I did if you can't deal with the argument on its own terms. Again, good luck raising that strawman.

...you can't deal with the argument on its own terms

Oh the irony!

You go with that...

 

[Chaussette]

Hitting children is for cowards.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This something that has interest me for quite awhile now. Since I was spanked as a kid when I did wrong and for the most part I came out fine other than my Depression that I still haven't kicked out of.

But for the most part a sane human being. But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive is this old school way of discipline hurting are kids this the question I ask you guys here.

Do Not Hit Your Children with Belts - YouTube

Study Links Spanking Kids To Aggression, Language Problems

Maternal spanking at age 5, even at low levels, was associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior at age 9, even after an array of risks and earlier child behavior were controlled for. Father’s high-frequency spanking at age 5 was associated with lower child receptive vocabulary scores at age 9.

Womanist Musings: Dear Black Community: Beating Children With Belts Is Not Discipline, It's Abuse

He further goes on to state that he is going to give the child a reason to cry and then beats him some more. In the next scene we see the child outside with a tear streaked face. The father makes him run, crab walk and then do push ups. When he realizes that the child did the push up on his knees he accuses him of cheating and demands 15 push ups. At the end of the video you see the child doing a push up with strain more than evident on his face with the words job well done on the screen.

for 10,000 years children were spank as part of an array of punishments to correct bad behavior.

during this time, child, criminal, violence was very low.

Now the only acceptable punishment is a time out.

Since this time, children have started committing crimes that only adults would ever consider.



So while there are plenty of studies out, by leftist covering for leftist, the clear results are out in the open for all to see

 

[Two Thumbs]

I fully expect a link to be demanded or be told it's different, by a liberal.

 

[eflatminor]

Hitting children is for cowards.

On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child. Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out. Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions. But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class? You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course. Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.

 

[Chaussette]

Hitting children is for cowards.

On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child. Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out. Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions. But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class? You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course. Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.

Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.

 

[R.D.]

Hitting children is for cowards.

On the other hand, only a coward would avoid that which is necessary to raise an honorable child. Timeouts are easy, the cowards way out. Instilling an unwavering understanding of right and wrong, of honor and respect, that's difficult and requires more than just your good intentions. But hey, as long as you're buddies with your kid and you never have to make hard choices, so what if he grows up to be a cheat, a liar or another entitled member of the recipient class? You've got your bumper sticker mentality behind you...and the best of intentions of course. Actual results mean little in the face of such 'logic'.

Sorry, you fail, I raised 2 decent children without ever hitting them once. Only cowards can't find another way than hitting your children.

You're so special

Did you also raise them with that smug condenscending holier than thou 'tude? Lucky them.