Sometimes You Just Can't Fix Ignorance (Page 5)

I think you might have missed my point.  I was specifically referring to the name calling, and I said it was both sides; spanking or not spanking. The general "rule" has become to remove the child from the public eye, or wait until you can.  Then the period of effectiveness of the punishment (spanking or non spanking) is missed.

But I have noticed one thing about this thread.  The people who spank - and have stood up for their choices - have received some, okay, maybe a moderate amount of criticism.  It seems that there isn't much criticism of those who have chosen not to spank.  But I might have missed that.  There were a lot of posts to read through.

I wonder why that is?

People like a good sex thread.

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=461878&start=41

They called me "Dr. Phil".  That's just low, mean, dirty and cruel. 

Goose - WHERE IS THE SEX THREAD?!?!? 

Powerman - HAHAHAHAHA -  Right?

And as for Doctor Phil over there - as soon as my insurance deductible is met for the century, I'll see if I can't get in to see you for my issues.

The original point was that in modern society, assuming I don't commit any criminal acts, I can go through my entire life without having to worry about being assaulted or coerced to do something with pain. So using it as a form of discipline for children doesn't make sense. If anything, they should be taught that you can't resolve anything with hitting, not the reverse. Times change, we don't keep slaves, we don't beat our wives, and we don't use whips, stocks or stinging nettles for punishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9y3SIPt7o

I get that it's not an all or nothing - but watch the video (just jump around to get the gist of it) - if you think that's ok, then yah we completely disagree. If you think that's way beyond the sort of spankings you're referring to, then maybe not such a difference after all.

I worked for an internet provider and I also reclaimed old computers - you cannot imagine how much of that sort of stuff is "common" now that it's relatively anonymous... But yes, another topic altogether.

Coz spanking involves striking a child. And although many Americans still approve of it, it's become controversial. The "experts" claim that spanking it's not really necessary for good child rearing. There are many other effective means of training one's child to be respectful, responsible and safe. 

Although,

were my son to do anything at school that might cause him to be suspended or possibly put him in the paddle seat... he might prefer the beating.

One thing left for me to say on this:

I do  not spank daily, weekly or even monthly. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember the last time I spanked my boys. It is something that is done rarely in my family's case, which is how I think it should be done. Few and far between, not everyday.

But I will say that those first spankings set a tone for my children to know what the rules were and what the consequences of breaking those rules are.

I feel like the thought of this thread is that parents that spank, spank their kids alot and often, which is not necessarily the case.

I never spank mine anymore....haven't had to for years.  The best is when we are in a store or at a restaurant and some kid has gone off the deep end and a parent is telling him/her over and over to stop the behavior.....my kids will look at me and chuckle.

It takes a village.

In hind sight BFD, that was out of line. I retract my statement. I do have more respect for you than that.

To tag on a little just by calling it "hitting" makes it sound a lot more sinister in my opinion.  I did a quick google to even see what percentage of parents use corporal punishment and found this study that I found interesting: (i'm sure there are more current ones)
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP36.pdf 

We present data on corporal punishment (CP) by a nationally representative sample of 991 
American parents interviewed in 1995. Sii types of CP were examined: slaps on the hand 
or leg, spanking on the buttocks, pinching, shaking, hitting on the buttocks with a belt or 
paddle, and slapping in the face. The overall prevalence rate (the percentage of parents 
using any of these types of CP during the previous year) was 35% for infants and reached 
a peak of 94% at ages 3 and 4. Despite rapid decline after age 5, just over half of American 
parents hit children at age 12, a third at age 14, and 13% at age 17. Analysis of chronicity 
found that parents who hit teenage children did so an average of about six times during the 
year. Severity, as measured by hitting the child with a belt or paddle, was greatest for children 
age 5-12 (28% of such children).

I found it interesting that at ages 3-4 94% of parents use some form of corporal punishment.  My oldest was born in 94 so the study is fairly relavent to my wife and I and I'd say it reflects the usage of spanking on our kids.  Also, we only swatted on the hand and spanked on the butt (usually single swat) and never did the pinching, slapping, shaking, belts, etc...

I think it's easy to take the most extreme forms of corporal punishment and apply them to everyone who subscribes to corporal punishment.  I knew a guy in the navy who grew up in Hawaii with very strict Hawaiian parents.  He told me stories of his mom making him kneel on dry rice on the hardwood floor for hours at a time for punishment.  Yeah, that's pure torture and I would never support that even thought it may be a form of corporal punishment technically.

Locked. But what is the point? We are talking about corporal punishment period. The OP was not about excessive force, just that it occurred. So this thread has been about, and you have been arguing whether it should be used in the first place. I have stated I do not have a problem with corporal punishment. If you do, don't do it, or petition for the laws to be changed... but I'm not going to sit here and examine every instance you put up on what is corporal punishment and what crosses the line of abuse. If it crosses the line it should be handled accordingly. I can't make it any more clear than that.

Exactly...like only extreme use is considered... it is the ONLY form of discipline used, for the most MINOR offenses and it happens ALL the time.

It was the last resort for my parents, I would rarely allow it to get to that point, and it was a pretty egregious disobedience that occurred. But again, just the knowledge of it and knowing where the line was kept me straight 99% of the time without any troubles besides having to be asked 5 times to do what I was told.

You mean you quit "cruisin for a bruisin"?

Darn straight.

Personally, I set a tone early in my son's life, set expectations for his behavior with others, and have been consistant in that. He's very respectful and kind. His teachers are always surprised at how well behaved he is. And that kind of makes me sad. 

As a teacher, most kids nowadays very self centered and disrespectful. The parents can be even worse. It's  a societal problem in the US.  And that is also.. very sad :-(

Perhaps more reason to use stun guns?

In case anyone cares, the school district defined the rules more for corporal punishment. Parents now have to opt in instead of opting out as before, and they have to say who can give the punishment male or female.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/09/texas-high-school-paddling-controversy-strikes-after-girls-struck-by-principals-80303.html

LMFAO.. You are just DYING for me to go off in your stun gun thread.. arent' you. I am not biting that bait.

Anyway, even though i don't spank, were my son to break school rules bad enough to get punishment, I wouldn't go off on the principal for doing it.

I'd give Bill Clinton sympathy "I feel your pain."

I'm just saying.... in the videos they look remarkably well behaved after administration of control voltage.

Let's just send the kids out into the wild like the Spartans.  If they live, they are worth keeping?

(300 reference)

What do you think the public school system is?