Christian crusaders go to battle over spanking - Tools of discipline horrify some of faithful

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/6/5 | Anna Badkhen

[cyclotic]

I didn't write that, I was copying someone else.

As a parent of four kids, I am a firm believer in the wise, judicious use of pain for discipline and training.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Like the woman in Texas who drowned her four kids?

A very very very rare thing- when a mother kills her own children. You cannot hold that to the standard.

[lsee]

Ah, sorry...

[Katya]

Exactly, most people now understand that striking an animal has no positive benefits in training. In fact, positive reenforcement has much deeper meaning and long term training benefits. Can you imagine commanding your dog to "come" and then swatting him?
I suppose the pro-whip people look at the "Sting" of the switch as a modified electric collar. Of course it's the whip, not their arms that are inflicting the pain....where have I heard that argument used before? Oh right, guns are the problem, not the people who use them.
I'm actually not an anti-spanking fanatic, I can think of times when a swat on the bottom may be necessary. I just think the use of a "punishment tool" as a way to distance yourself from the act, is one of cowardness, and relying on corporal punishment as a "teaching" tool is a sign of lazy parenting. Then again, perhaps the ideal is in creating an automaton not a child.

[From many - one.]

I don't see myself as fanatic either, but I object to spanking and I object to weapons.

Spanking because only spanking societies have spanking fetishes and I'd rather not risk that for my kids. Weapons because to me it's pure sadism. My perception is backed up by
the unwillingless of weapons users to explore non-violent alternatives.

I'd rather see a swat to the shoulder or something if a person lacks enough imagination to come up with something better.

[Katya]

I know many families who never touched their child in an agressive manner, or resorted to shouting. It requires alot more discipline and control in the house. These are families who are very firm and consequential when it comes to action and behavior.
Regrettfully, I've personally swatted my children a handful of times when they were pre-schoolers....because of potentially "dangerous" behavior which I should have corrected and insured would not take place in the first place(running into the street etc). I found time-outs and other behavior modification including positive reenforcement to have longer term benefits.

[From many - one.]

"I know many families who never touched their child in an agressive manner, or resorted to shouting. It requires alot more discipline and control in the house. These are families who are very firm and consequential when it comes to action and behavior."

I really like your formulation. Too many hitter equate not hitting with no discipline.

[papertyger]

"That is because any success would be anecdotal at best, and disingenuous at worst......"

Ditto for using it.

Well, I'll give you this, you're at least consistent im your pathological myopia.

No. I'm sorry. A precept that has been universally accepted by virtually every culture across the planet for the entirety of human history is not an anecdote. But I understand you're not going to let truth stand in the way of a snappy come-back.

[papertyger]

response: the jacket incident demonstrated that my judgment could be trusted and that I trusted their common sense. It worked.

crossing the street simply is how one responds when the danger was beyond their comprehension.

As I said, that is not discipline. You don't seem to grasp the distinction that compliance with your wishes is not the goal of discipline. Not that that surprises me.

I have met many a parent that took great pride in their disdain for corporal punishment, and every single one of them were too self absorbed to notice their *gentle* means of discipline was more barbaric than use of the "rod." Every single one of them practiced "emotional terrorism" to metaphorically arm-twist their children into compliance with the parent's wishes. Of course this makes the parent's life easier, but it doesn't do a damn thing for the kids except make them very adept at pleasing the parents.

Furthermore, in my experience, the marks left by *that* kind of "discipline," while outwardly invisible, last far into adulthood and taint every relationship to some extent.

How do you spank several children simultaneously?

You don't have to spank simultaneously, because the infraction, judgment, punishment loop is so short as to be *functionally* simultaneous.

[papertyger]

That is a response to those who quote a handful of proverbs to support their hitting kids.

And also shows you'll descend to doctrinaire legalism to protect your pet dogma. The very premises of the questions betray a mind perfectly comfortable with the "oral sex isn't adultery" mentality.

[papertyger]

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I dare say how you "sees 'em" is totalling predicated on how you want to "calls 'em."

That is the one thing you've managed to demonstrate beyond dispute.

[papertyger]

And Solomon's result was Rehoboam. Read about him sometimes.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you King classicly don't have a whole lot to do with raising their own children. Furthermore, attacking the validity of a proposition based on the history of the proposer is a classic fallacious argument.

Would you like to look it up yourself, or should I provide you a link?

[papertyger]

Like the woman in Texas who drowned her four kids?

A very very very rare thing- when a mother kills her own children. You cannot hold that to the standard.

But don't you have to wonder about the emotional stability, and moral compass of someone who would propose such a grotesque oddity as a "case in point?"

[CometBaby]

I was not beaten or spanked as a child. You don't have to beat children to raise good kids. I never got addicted to drugs or booze and I didn't sleep around. I am a CPA now and I have never been arrested.

I know plenty of people who were not beaten or spanked that are responsible citizens today. I also know many who were, and they now beat their own kids. Gosh what a lovely heritage huh?

Defending the beating of children is about as moral as defending a man who beats his wife.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Defending the beating of children is about as moral as defending a man who beats his wife."

I've seen the results of lack of discipline in action, so DO NOT try to tell me that SOME children don't need the extra "attention-getter" of physical chastisement.

You don't want to use corporal punishment---fine, but keep your nose out of how other people choose to discipline their children.

[Labyrinthos]

But don't you have to wonder about the emotional stability, and moral compass of someone who would propose such a grotesque oddity as a "case in point?"

That's what can happen when you are raised by a so-called born again parents who physically and verbally beat the crap out of their children in the name of God. BTW, I'll match my moral compass against anyone at anytime.

[papertyger]

BTW, I'll match my moral compass against anyone at anytime.

You don't get it. You have nothing to match with. You've already demonstrated an inability to stay within the bounds of sound judgment by citing a perverse, and more importantly, atypical case.

With people like you raising children, it's no wonder intellectual dishonesty is rampant. Once a person learns to use emotional terrorism and hyperbole to force their position any pretense of persuading others on a basis of mutual respect, or common sense if you will, is lost. More importantly, when used on children, they learn no philosophical boundries exist in persuing their agenda.

Is it any wonder such flapdoodle as "I have a right to be happy" gets such widespread acceptance?

[CometBaby]

You don't want to use corporal punishment---fine, but keep your nose out of how other people choose to discipline their children.

I gave my opinion, and I am entitled to do that. You are like a leftist who cannot tollerate an opposing viewpoint. Your over-reaction tells me I must have struck close to home.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I gave my opinion, and I am entitled to do that."

Sure you are. The problem is that folks who think like you always go out and pass laws to force your opinions on folks who DON'T think like you.

"You are like a leftist who cannot tollerate an opposing viewpoint.

You can have any viewpoint you like, as long as you don't try to cram your morals down my throat at the end of a gun (i.e. using government force).

"Your over-reaction tells me I must have struck close to home."

LOL, I don't have a dog in this fight---my wife and I don't have kids (she was a DES baby, and can't). My opinion is strictly based on years of observation (as a scientist and trained observer) of other families with children. By and large, families who use rational corporal punishment turn out well-adjusted, well-mannered adults. Families who use the "Dr. Spock", "don't punish the kids", "time-out" approach turn out juvenile delinquents far more often.

[CometBaby]

The problem is that folks who think like you always go out and pass laws to force your opinions on folks who DON'T think like you. You can have any viewpoint you like, as long as you don't try to cram your morals down my throat at the end of a gun (i.e. using government force).

Folks like me? You mean anyone who says something you don't like?

Who is passing laws? Who is craming anything down your throat? Suddenly I have a gun? LOL

It was a personal opinion, why can't you handle it with dignity? Do you always get hysterical and make preposterous exagerations whenever someone disagrees with you?