spanking / smacking children right or wrong?

who should decide wether a child is hit by their parents?

  • other- something else - none of the above

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
May 2009
207
0
Newton and Vandeven (2009) review the existing literature on child care issues. These authors note that several studies document the high rate of spanking, slapping or shaking children. Given these findings, they conclude that the short-term and long-term costs to individuals who experience family violence are well demonstrated and include not only emotional repercussions, but also chronic health conditions, which result in significant cost to society.
 
May 2009
6
0
personally, i dont think there is a so-called as right or wrong, because you can't generalize a behavior just by a single case. as from biology, there are animals who learn from trail-and-error, which is to cause use electric shock to correct a certain behavior. Thus, it is somewhat like hanging a carrot in front of the donkey, because it motivates the people to react in a certain way.
Some people just have to learn it the hard way, so i suppose you can't say that it is right or wrong to smack children.

However, if hitting the children is based on an express of anger, because it is a release of negative emotions, then it is wrong.
Hitting is okay if that is a way to teach them and to correct them, but if it is in the usage of abuse then i suppose it is wrong.
 
May 2009
4
0
I would, in fact could, never lay a hand on a child.

Frankly, who are we as adults, knowing that a child is small, weak
and helpless and would not dare to retaliate against bigger human
beings like us, let alone have any means of retaliation, to hit and
hurt them ? How could hitting a little kid ever be justified ? What
right do we have, realistically, to hit another human being ?

Such an action merely glaringly reveals the pathetic human weakness
(and inferiority complex) to express our ego by taking advantage of
our superiority in size, age and seniority to hurt the weak and
helpless. This essentially transports us back to the barbaric age
- no different from the Nazis' oppression and degradation of the
Jews - and in the end degrades our own humanity and dignity.

What right do we have then, to "punish" another human
being, especially one smaller, younger, weaker and virtually
helpless against us, moreover our own blood ?

The very act of "punishment" is reserved for those who seek
to victimize and oppress helpless prisoners, and thus could
never be justified. How then, could you even "punish" a child ?

Try hitting your dog, let alone a child, especially repeatedly.
What do you think would be the consequences ? It will
curl up or run for its life whenever it comes face to face
with a stranger. You've just destroyed a potentially good
watchdog.


This story should be more than enough to convince
most adults never to hit a child :

http://www.neverhitachild.org/never.html


If the above is not enough, then this :

http://www.innerharmonyhypnosis.com/hypnosis_articles/early_childhood_emotional_trauma.pdf
 
May 2009
21
0
[quote author=SWM link=topic=422.msg3568#msg3568 date=1243016144]
i am of the opinion (perhaps it is frame of mind rather than an opion) that there are much better methods than violence to make. there are ways to make people and children respond and react that do not require violence.

with children the work is done before they misbehave, they will have respect for your authority and guidance not because they fear, but because they trust you, with all of their heart and mind.
[/quote]

We must be careful. I do not endorse abuse and agree there are better ways than violence, but I do believe that to deny the use of physical force as a reality of life sets a child up for some unique challenges. An important lesson in life is that there may always be someone bigger, stronger, and willing to impose immediate retribution. If the parent fails to teach this lesson, the child will eventually learn the hard way from a bully, a peer, the police, a boss, an enemy, etc. And, because the child failed to learn this lesson while young, it may take several encounters to realize (1) that some people just don't have the same value system and (2) there are times when physical forces is the appropriate option.

While psychologically the ideal view violence is never the answer may have merit, philosphically it is flawed. First, there is an assumption it is the parent that will correct the child when the child has done something wrong. Second, there is the assumption time is not a factor. Third, for the ideal view to hold true their must be the underlying assumption that ALL others have the same value system. I would sumbit that all three assumptions are inaccurate.
 

SWM

May 2008
2,314
0
First, there is an assumption it is the parent that will correct the child when the child has done something wrong. Second, there is the assumption time is not a factor. Third, for the ideal view to hold true their must be the underlying assumption that ALL others have the same value system.
these are assumptions that you assume when you consider the non punitive/violent ways of teaching?

and your assumptions do not necessarliy belong to any "ideal" per se.

While psychologically the ideal view violence is never the answer may have merit, philosphically it is flawed.
it is never good to use the word never plus we must also ask, violence is not the answer to what?
 
May 2009
21
0
SMW,

Uh, you just used the word never to make a definitive statement..."it is never good..."? So you are allowed to make a definitive statement, but I am not? I'm confused :)

I technically agree, there are better ways to make people/children respond and react that do not require violence. I note, you did not use the definitive term never. So you agree there are times when violence is required? If so then would a parent hitting their child on the bottom be appropriate?

You are correct, my assumptions are presented as pragmatic/problematic not as an ideal. While as stated above I agree there are better ways to impart knowledge, there are limiting factors or constraints in the real world. By imposing a law that would outlaw any form of physical discipline is imposing a "never" that goes against the assumptions presented.
 
Apr 2009
143
0
Illinois
Spanking occurs when the ability to communicate has failed.

It is important to leave these moral decisions up to the citizen. Bill
 

SWM

May 2008
2,314
0
[quote author=PsychVegas link=topic=422.msg3634#msg3634 date=1243297595]
SMW,

Uh, you just used the word never to make a definitive statement..."it is never good..."? So you are allowed to make a definitive statement, but I am not?[/quote]no sorry that is just my sense of humour.

I'm confused :)
good, that shows i am more intelligent than you :p
lmao

I technically agree, there are better ways to make people/children respond and react that do not require violence. I note, you did not use the definitive term never. So you agree there are times when violence is required? If so then would a parent hitting their child on the bottom be appropriate?
no, i try to avoid making absolute statements such as never. however that does not mean i agree that violence may have an appropriate use. it is my opinion that there better means. i believe that parents who smack there children on the bottom do so because they have no more effective means.

on this point i agree emphatically with Bill H (see post above) violence occurs when communication has failed.

You are correct, my assumptions are presented as pragmatic/problematic not as an ideal. While as stated above I agree there are better ways to impart knowledge, there are limiting factors or constraints in the real world. By imposing a law that would outlaw any form of physical discipline is imposing a "never" that goes against the assumptions presented.
i also agree with this. parents would need to have better skills at teaching and nurturing children before any such legislation could be effectively implemented.
 
May 2009
21
0
SWM,

I agree, ideally it would be great if education could solve the issue. If we then continue down the idealist path there is no need for legislation as through better education there is better communication and therefore no children are spanked. Under either argument, whether pragmatic or idealistic, it can be demonstrated that there is no need for the U.N. to create legislation.

I also agree the use of physical force (violence) can be and most often is a failure of verbal communication. So I also agree with Bill :) However, this does not mean that the use of physical force is always wrong. One of my assumptions is that physical force can be the result of time constraints. Time constraints can create conditions where verbal communication fails or is not possible, thereby placing an individual in a situation where physical force is the best way to communicate. And this becomes a very slippery slope with tons of variables.

For instance, I would find it very difficult to hold a parent legally accountable if they saw their child reaching for a hot stove and based out of fear and love for the child they instinctively...arguably biological/adaptive, smack the child on the hand or bottom as they pull the child away from the danger. It would be very difficult to have parenting classes that are capable of overriding fight or flight instincts.