View Full Version : Corporal Punishment
Morkeliph
04-14-2006, 2:20 PM
Many of you may be familiar with the debate for or against the use of corporal punishment in child-rearing. Provided below is an article that presents the argument for one side of this issue. The question is, where do you stand? Is spanking and other forms of corporal punishment necessary to train discipline in your children? If not, what other methods could we use? Is spanking really as bad for your kid as some say it is? Let us know what you think.
The 13 Ways Spanking Harms Children
By Michael J. Marshall, P.h.D.
1. Creates aggression. Children who are spanked engage in more hitting and fighting than those who are not physically
punished by their parents.
2. Lowers self-esteem. Spanking sends a message to kids that says, "You are a bad person who deserves pain and you are not valuable enough to protect from being hurt," which is incorporated into their self-concept.
3. Creates negative affect (bad feelings). Physical punishment results in feelings of fear, anxiety, humiliation, and
depression. In extreme cases it can lead to such personality disorders as sociopathy and multiple personalities. Children
become very confused emotionally when the person they expect to love and care for them periodically flip-flops and
deliberately hurts them.
4. Alienates the child from the parents. People naturally try to avoid a source of physical punishment, resent the
perpetrator, and generally do not like or feel good about the person who is responsible for it. Likewise children may come to associate the punisher with the punishment and end up being fearful of and try to avoid the parent.
5. Creates suppression effects. Kids who receive a lot of physical punishment are less spontaneous, more reserved, and
afraid to try new things out of fear that it will result in more punishment.
6. Contributes to antisocial behavior. Spanking teaches children that the motive for desired behaviors is concern for the
consequences to one’s self, that is, to avoid pain, rather than be concerned for the effects of one’s behavior on others.
7. Creates masochistic tendencies. Through the conditioning process, children who are hurt by those who love them will come to associate pain with love.
8. Hinders learning and achievement. Children who have had a lot of physical punishment do poorly in school, perform
more poorly on tests of development, graduate from college at a lower rate, and earn less money.
9. Models undesirable behaviors. Children of parents who use hitting as their primary means of controlling behavior learn that "might makes right" and are less likely to acquire and use nonviolent conflict resolution skills.
10. The undesirable behavior is not eliminated. The unwanted behavior is only temporarily suppressed in the presence of the punisher. Through discrimination learning a child quickly learns that she can get away with engaging in the wrong behavior whenever the punisher is not present to act as an enforcer.
11. Makes children more likely to engage in the forbidden behaviors. Children brought up with physical punishment
have higher levels of reactance, which is the desire to engage in those behaviors which are prohibited, than those who are disciplined nonphysically.
12. Raises the punishment threshold. Children can eventually adapt to a given level of punishment and it will lose its
intended effect. This forces the punisher to constantly increase the intensity of punishment in order for it to have any effect. The increased level of physical punishment then makes them become jaded to being struck by others and more likely to accept abusive relationships as normal.
13. Causes physical injuries. Pediatricians are alarmed at the number of injuries they see like radial arm fractures and shaken child syndrome, which result from parent's who physically strike or shake their children.
Are you surprised by this list? I was when I first read about the unintended impact of punishment on behavior. I have found that very few people have any idea of the full impact of their actions when they spank their children. I want parents to be aware of these findings because I want them to be fully aware of what they are doing to their kids. I want them to make informed choices. If they choose to discipline with corporal punishment, they might as well know that they are playing Russian roulette. Since human behavior is probabilistic in nature, some spanked kids may not exhibit any of these undesirable behaviors, but then again, wouldn’t it be foolish to take the risk?
Desert_Eagle
04-14-2006, 2:33 PM
Spanking is good for kids who are out of control. It should be used as a last resort.
B.A.Baracus
04-14-2006, 3:08 PM
Spanking is also good on out-of-control girl friends:)
But really I think people are being to soft on thier kids today, thats why respect is all but a myth in todays yuth. A good ass wupin never hurt anyone, but just hitting a child for no reason is very wrong. And by ass-wupin I dont mean hospitalizeing them, if yo son gets out of line, stick him in the chest.
Shoot them all and let god sort the rest
I think we need some style of proper military discipline for some.
Here in the good 'ol UK, we had a program, called Lad's Army. Then they did a second series, 'Bad Lads army.' The 1950's regime changed them, and most (they were ex-cons) became productive young men.
There you go, I'm all up for Corp. Punishment, or even Sarge. punisment.
There's only two things come from Texas, queers and steers, and I don't see no horns on you boy!
and Baracus...u pervert...Never catch me doing that...not ever...*AHEM*:rolleyes:
Morkeliph
04-14-2006, 4:07 PM
Wrong kind of corporal. I do hope that you were only kidding, and if you were, this isn't exactly the forum for posts that don't contribute to the thread topic or discussion at hand.
Don't believe in coporal punishment for raising your kids.
That list basically brings up anything I would say...
But I think it says something about you as a parent if you have to resort to smacking or spanking your child for misbehaving. It seems that you as a parent has failed, not the child.
-Neo
Desert_Eagle
04-14-2006, 10:07 PM
True, but what happens once you get to that point? Even if you have failed, sometimes because of that spanking becomes necessary.
Spartan-II
04-14-2006, 10:13 PM
What works for one child doesn't always work for the other. Corporal punishment in some instances is a useful tool to teach a child not to do something. Some children learn after only a few time outs not to do something, while some children view the punishment with only slight annoyance.
You shouldn't ALWAYS use Corporal punishment, but it is a viable alternative when nothing else seems to work.
Wrong kind of corporal. I do hope that you were only kidding, and if you were, this isn't exactly the forum for posts that don't contribute to the thread topic or discussion at hand.
No, I was merely commenting that military discipline can help. I'm not saying mandatory military service, especially not for conscientious objectors (especially since concerning most wars, I am one.)
Basically, i was saying there are ways to discipline people who go too far without beating the crap out of them.
For all the reasons, corporal punishment is a bad thing.
You want to hit your children/students? Would you want THEM to be hitting YOU? Or THEM to hit OTHER CHILDREN? You are teaching them that violence is the way to exert authority/discipline, which is obviously the wrong message. Usually the spanking is ONLY associated with authority, never with teaching a "lesson" which actually is a lesson.
It can be silly sometimes the extent of which children are "protected" from being offended, (lets ban seasaws because they offend fat people), but corporal punishment is good for noone. Full stop.
Spartan-II
04-16-2006, 5:32 PM
Alright. Let's stop corporal punishment, and then when kids start killing each other, wonder where our system of lollipops, timeouts, and friendly little chats went wrong. Corporal punishment used properly can be an effective disciplinary tool, while too much can lead to mental issues. An ouright ban would be unnescessary, only use corporal punishment in instances where it's effective.
Desert_Eagle
04-16-2006, 5:38 PM
For all the reasons, corporal punishment is a bad thing.
You want to hit your children/students? Would you want THEM to be hitting YOU? Or THEM to hit OTHER CHILDREN? You are teaching them that violence is the way to exert authority/discipline, which is obviously the wrong message. Usually the spanking is ONLY associated with authority, never with teaching a "lesson" which actually is a lesson.
It can be silly sometimes the extent of which children are "protected" from being offended, (lets ban seasaws because they offend fat people), but corporal punishment is good for noone. Full stop.
Sometimes kids need to learn authority. And often, spanking does teach kids a valueable lesson.
"Would you want them hitting you" is a straw man. And by the way, violence or the threat o fit is the way to exert authority. How do you think the police force works, "please turn yourself in or we won't be happy with you?"
Alright. Let's stop corporal punishment, and then when kids start killing each other, wonder where our system of lollipops, timeouts, and friendly little chats went wrong. Corporal punishment used properly can be an effective disciplinary tool, while too much can lead to mental issues. An ouright ban would be unnescessary, only use corporal punishment in instances where it's effective.
Corporal punishment would encourage kids to kill each other. Violence creates violence. Although of course when they reach a high enough age, the police should be able to use violence against them; against the teenage louts.
Magmaniac
04-16-2006, 10:28 PM
Hello?
Fundimental Attrubition Error?
That list is crap.
Too much credit is given to SPANKING being the reason for kids going bad when a the factor of unique individuality is JUST AS if not MORE important in the development of children as situational factors.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying spanking can't lead to those things... because it can. What I'm saying is that correlation is not causation, that when spanking doesn't happen, those people who would have had those traits caused by spanking in your list will still develop those traits, because they are predispositioned to develop them, spanking just brings it out earlier, which is really not a bad thing.
Alright. Let's stop corporal punishment, and then when kids start killing each other, wonder where our system of lollipops, timeouts, and friendly little chats went wrong. Corporal punishment used properly can be an effective disciplinary tool, while too much can lead to mental issues. An ouright ban would be unnescessary, only use corporal punishment in instances where it's effective.
people spank their kids now.
kids are killing kids now.
So could it get any worse?
-Neo
Desert_Eagle
04-17-2006, 1:36 AM
Corporal punishment would encourage kids to kill each other. Violence creates violence. Although of course when they reach a high enough age, the police should be able to use violence against them; against the teenage louts.
This is so self-contradictory in all 3 parts.
First, "spanking encourages kids to murder each other" is absolutely ridiculous. And then you advocate violence by the police yet simultaneously claim that violence creates violence. Is it possible that in some cases, violence does not create violence?
If not, then by definition police acts create violence.
SarahK
04-17-2006, 6:53 AM
The 13 Ways Spanking Harms Children
By Michael J. Marshall, P.h.D.
1. Creates aggression. Children who are spanked engage in more hitting and fighting than those who are not physically punished by their parents.
2. Lowers self-esteem. Spanking sends a message to kids that says, "You are a bad person who deserves pain and you are not valuable enough to protect from being hurt," which is incorporated into their self-concept.
3. Physical punishment results in feelings of fear, anxiety, humiliation, and depression. In extreme cases it can lead to such personality disorders as sociopathy and multiple personalities. Children become very confused emotionally when the person they expect to love and care for them periodically flip-flops and deliberately hurts them.
4. Alienates the child from the parents. People naturally try to avoid a source of physical punishment, resent the perpetrator, and generally do not like or feel good about the person who is responsible for it. Likewise children may come to associate the punisher with the punishment and end up being fearful of and try to avoid the parent.
5. Creates suppression effects. Kids who receive a lot of physical punishment are less spontaneous, more reserved, and afraid to try new things out of fear that it will result in more punishment.
6. Contributes to antisocial behavior. Spanking teaches children that the motive for desired behaviors is concern for the consequences to one’s self, that is, to avoid pain, rather than be concerned for the effects of one’s behavior on others.
7. Creates masochistic tendencies. Through the conditioning process, children who are hurt by those who love them will come to associate pain with love.
8. Hinders learning and achievement. Children who have had a lot of physical punishment do poorly in school, perform more poorly on tests of development, graduate from college at a lower rate, and earn less money.
9. Models undesirable behaviors. Children of parents who use hitting as their primary means of controlling behavior learn that "might makes right" and are less likely to acquire and use nonviolent conflict resolution skills.
10. The undesirable behavior is not eliminated. The unwanted behavior is only temporarily suppressed in the presence of the punisher. Through discrimination learning a child quickly learns that she can get away with engaging in the wrong behavior whenever the punisher is not present to act as an enforcer.
11. Makes children more likely to engage in the forbidden behaviors. Children brought up with physical punishment have higher levels of reactance, which is the desire to engage in those behaviors which are prohibited, than those who are disciplined nonphysically.
12. Raises the punishment threshold. Children can eventually adapt to a given level of punishment and it will lose its intended effect. This forces the punisher to constantly increase the intensity of punishment in order for it to have any effect. The increased level of physical punishment then makes them become jaded to being struck by others and more likely to accept abusive relationships as normal.
reading those points I can say that all of them sound quite possible and some from personal experience and quite a few I can apply to myself:
1.
3.
4.
6, maybe but that might just be a natural disregard for rules *shrug*
7.. huh, maybe never thought of it as the cause tho. sounds like this stuff has come from research tho.
8 - quite possibly, I've got a very high IQ from tests but did very bad in secondary ("high" for the yanks..) school exams, mostly due to apathy (did well on the tests, just didn't feel motivated to do coursework at all
9 - quite possibly, if someone pisses me off I tend to try completely destroy them so that they can't hurt me again. Couple a complete arsehole of a (ex-army) father with bullying at an all girls' school (HELL) for being "different" (aka strange.. oh and I think a lot were jealous of my looks too haha) and in my experience *real assholes* don't listen to reason - the only way you can deal with them is to hurt them mentally or physically as much as possible -- I got a guy from college sent to court recently for hitting and headbutting me.. I just took it figuring if I bit or otherwise hurt him it would be less damage than if he was completely and clearly the one in the wrong.. UK laws are crap about self protection from what i have heard)
I wish I'd done something now though because last week I got a letter saying he's on "Conditional Discharge" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_discharge) (at the link IGNORE THE FIRST PART and read only the bit after "In Britain, ...") for six months which is basically the lowest possible punishment... I have lost all respect I had for the law now. The Police are generally good people, but the Courts are the ones who decide punishments and they're obviously way too easy on people in my opinion :/
anyway enough ranting there (as you can see I hold grudges too :P), onto the next point:
10 and 11 - Probably (these seem pretty similar to each other)
IrishDutchman
04-17-2006, 4:05 PM
Kids today are spoilt to the bone, all of them except me! :( I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing for me?
Anyways, my parents never hit me or anything, but my fear for them is on a whole nother level!
Lots of parents just don't know how to say 'NO'. and I don't mean just any type of 'no'
something that really shuts you up. My dad sometimes really scares the shit out of little kids that expect to get everything the way the want it, he just denies them what they want in a really decisive manner that doesn't let you argue any further.
So, who really needs spanking? The 'No' is mightier than the hand, just shut 'em up good, and let them realize how unreasonable they're being.
hurting a kid just pisses them off even more, and won't teach them anything besides: Your father thinks you're an arse, and he'll hit you if you step out of line. It doesn't tell him why he shouldn't step out of line, what was wrong with the things he did, or what he should have done.
I say "swattin" (as it's called here in Nebraskaland) is a good thing. Every kid I've seen that has his/her parents spank them has always had some of the nicest attitudes I've ever seen. Kids whose parents don't swat... ...You don't wanna know. Anyway my parents always have swatted when one of us has done something bad and we've gotten all kinds of compliments from people of all sorts on how well we behave. That 13 point list is BS.
ScottieIWU
04-17-2006, 5:59 PM
Punishment of any kind is a psychologically ineffective means of changing behavior. Anybody with a background in gen psych knows that and there is plenty of psychological research to back that up.
However, for those without that background, I will help to elaborate on why:
Punishment depends on plenty of factors, but to name two: immediacy of punishment and efficacy of punishment.
Immediacy of punishment is what it sounds like. Spanking, for example, works on the idea that you condition children to realize that if they do action A, then it will result in pain. However, many parents wait to discipline children which results in a decreased association between the cause of punishment and the punishment. Therefore, many children never associate these things.
Efficacy of punishment is how important the punishment is to the punished. Taking away a toy from a child might not be effective if that child doesn't like that toy. Spanking depends on the child's fear of pain, and as factor 13 says, that fear may diminish. Therefore, hitting a child may lose efficacy over time.
And, with all conditioning, there are other factors. The child may not generalize spanking to all undesirable behaviors, resulting in more spanking for other infractions.
Conversely, reinforcement or lack of has been shown to be a more effective means of altering behavior. A child given a small reward for doing something good will then continue to do that expecting the reward. This continues, and as the child matures morally (i.e. Kohlberg's moral development) he/she should begin to internalize these things and get reinforcement from him/herself for the action. If an undesired behavior arises, not reinforcing it, (i.e. ignoring it) is the best way to go so long as it is minor.
However, in some cases, admittedly, punishment cannot be avoided. In that case, immediately resorting to corporal punishment isn't the best choice. Time-outs are a form of positive punishment that is generally more effective than other punishments. If all else fails, those punishing need to consider what the punished values most (maybe TV or a certain toy or dessert) and remove that stimulus.
Long story short, there is little psychological justification to hit a child. You all may say that the world is out of control but psychologically it is more likely that corporal punishment causes problems.
Desert_Eagle
04-17-2006, 8:03 PM
There is no concensus within the APA, sorry. Many psychologists agree with spanking.
Spanking can be effective when all other means have been exhausted.
ScottieIWU
04-17-2006, 10:10 PM
Many psychologists also thought Freud was right for a long time. Many psychologists still hold that homosexuality is a disorder. There's plenty of research that shows in general that punishment is ineffective as a means of getting rid of unwanted behavior.
Desert_Eagle
04-18-2006, 12:24 AM
And there is plenty of research which demonstrates the opposite.
Homosexuality might be a disorder. I disagree with how psychologists like to come up with "disorders" for every kind of behavior humans exhibit. I think it's excessive.
ScottieIWU
04-18-2006, 1:09 AM
And there is plenty of research which demonstrates the opposite.Show me some research.
As a show of good faith, here's one of many articles I found in a 5 minute search that can back my viewpoint up: Violence by Children Against Mothers in Relation to Violence Between Parents and Corporal Punishment by Parents (http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/CP71.pdf)
My favorite part is where it shows that children are more violent to their parents if their parents use corporal punishment. Another part I like is that it comes from a respectable peer-reviewed journal.
Please, somebody show me a comparable source that says there is a negligable negative impact from corporal punishment.
Desert_Eagle
04-18-2006, 1:38 AM
http://www.fractaldomains.com/devpsych/baumrind.htm
Wow those colors hurt. In the future, might you add a summary for links like that? who the fuck decided black on purple would look good. That is a rather interesting read, and now i have to go elsewhere so that my eyes stop vibrating from the color-clash.
-Neo
What nonsense.
Desert_Eagle, did you even read this? Or, more importantly, did you understand it? It seems not, for this article is a comment and not a study.
My tentative hypothesis is that appropriately used (especially within an authoritative context) disciplinary spanking is harmless relative to alternative forms of punishment. Once our analyses are complete I will be better able to formulate an empirically based conclusion on what outcomes are associated with mild disciplinary spanking relative to other disciplinary tactics in our particular population.
There. Notice that I have bolded certain parts of the text. This means that they are important. Why? Because they show that the entire article is based on assumptions and theory, and not actual testing. Furthermore, it seems to be a critique of one Dr. Straus' study, rather than a general authoritative work on the subject of corporal punishment.
And there is plenty of research which demonstrates the opposite.
I remind you of this earlier statement, and ask that if there's 'plenty of evidence', why the need to present only one link, which isn't even a concrete study?
Desert_Eagle
04-18-2006, 9:40 AM
http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today010828.html
"The scientific case against the use of normative physical punishment is a leaky dike, not a solid edifice," Dr. Baumrind said.
Dr. Baumrind, a psychologist known for her classic studies of authoritative, authoritarian and permissive styles of child-rearing, said she did not advocate spanking. But she argued that an occasional swat, when delivered in the context of good child-rearing, had not been shown to do any harm. The studies cited by opponents of corporal punishment, Dr. Baumrind contended, often do not adequately distinguish the effects of spanking, as practiced by nonabusive parents, from the impact of severe physical punishment and abuse. Nor do they consider other factors that might account for problems later in life, like whether parents are rejecting or whether defiant or aggressive children might be more likely to be spanked in the first place.
Dr. Baumrind described findings from her own research, an analysis of data from a long-term study of more than 100 families, indicating that mild to moderate spanking had no detrimental effects when such confounding influences were separated out. When the parents who delivered severe punishment — for example, frequently spanking with a paddle or striking a child in the face — were removed from the analysis, Dr. Baumrind and her colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Owens, found that few harmful effects linked with spanking were left. And the few that remained could be explained by other aspects of the parent-child relationship.
"When parents are loving and firm and communicate well with the child," Dr. Baumrind said, "the children are exceptionally competent and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as preschoolers."
The study drew upon data from the Family Socialization and Developmental Competence Project, which followed families in the Berkeley, Calif., area over 12 years, from the time their children were preschoolers until they were adolescents.
Dr. Baumrind argued that, without compelling evidence that spanking is harmful, parents should be free to rear their children in accordance with their own values and traditions.
Dr. George Holden, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas, agreed that many spanking studies were flawed. But Dr. Holden said enough studies had found harmful outcomes to suggest that spanking was "a damaging practice in certain cases under certain situations."
For his part, Dr. Straus said that, as in many scientific debates, each side tended to marshal the evidence that supported its view. In fact, two scholarly reviews, one by a researcher who does not oppose spanking and one by a researcher who does, came to very different conclusions.
Dr. Robert Larzelere of the University of Nebraska Medical Center reviewed 38 studies and found that in children under 7, nonabusive spanking produced no harmful effects and reduced misbehavior when used as a backup for milder discipline techniques like reasoning or timeouts. In other studies, however, children older than 6 did show detrimental effects when spanking was used too often, for example, three or more times a week. The review was published last year in the Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review.
ScottieIWU
04-18-2006, 10:21 AM
Dr. Robert Larzelere of the University of Nebraska Medical Center reviewed 38 studies and found that in children under 7, nonabusive spanking produced no harmful effects and reduced misbehavior when used as a backup for milder discipline techniques like reasoning or timeouts. In other studies, however, children older than 6 did show detrimental effects when spanking was used too often, for example, three or more times a week. The review was published last year in the Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review.It's like that little footnote you can kind of ignore and pretend it doesn't have anything negative to say.
Note that this study even says to use it as a back-up for "milder discipline techniques like reasoning or time outs." The fact is, most support for corporal punishment leaves it as a last resort, which seems like most families who use it do not use it as a last resort, but rather the first method.
isciplinary spanking is harmless relative to alternative forms of punishmentIt's important to note it's harmless relative to alternative punishment techniques. Punishment itself has plenty of negative effects, which is why it's usually preferable to use reinforcement to change behavior. That's why she didn't say directly it's harmless, because even non-physical punishment has negative side-effects.
Desert_Eagle
04-18-2006, 12:54 PM
It's like that little footnote you can kind of ignore and pretend it doesn't have anything negative to say.
Note that this study even says to use it as a back-up for "milder discipline techniques like reasoning or time outs." The fact is, most support for corporal punishment leaves it as a last resort, which seems like most families who use it do not use it as a last resort, but rather the first method.
Nonetheless, we are not arguing that "spanking is always the best way to deal with every situation." In fact it's quite the opposite. We are arguing against the assertion "spanking is never appropriate in any situation." The facts support this. There is no evidence against it, so we have to assume it's true.
It's important to note it's harmless relative to alternative punishment techniques. Punishment itself has plenty of negative effects, which is why it's usually preferable to use reinforcement to change behavior. That's why she didn't say directly it's harmless, because even non-physical punishment has negative side-effects.
And it has positive effects too. Your research is inconclusive.
ScottieIWU
04-18-2006, 1:04 PM
The question posed was:
Is spanking and other forms of corporal punishment necessary to train discipline in your children?I believe that:
1)We're dealing with corporal punishment taken all together, which includes things like paddles, belts, etc
2)We're deciding if it is necessary to alter behavior, not if it is appropriate.
So, I'd like to point out that your study that is ever-so-conclusive ignored paddles, switches, belts, etc. It looked only at spanking which is only part of corporal punishment. Therefore it hasn't shown that corporal punishment isn't detrimental.
However, we're looking more to answer the question of whether or not it is necessary, which relies not on whether or not it has negative side effects (a side product of the discussion that I admit interest in) but rather relies on if there are other means of altering behavior that are not as severe as corporal punishment. Is corporal punishment necessary to alter behavior? No, behavior can be altered without extremes of punishment, such as corporal punishment methods. Behavior can be altered by reinforcement (see below) first and then less severe punishment next. I'm interested to see evidence of whether or not corporal punishment is necessary to alter behavior.
It's a general fact that punishment is less effective than reinforcement. There is no inconclusive part about that. Conditioning doesn't have negative side effects such as lowered self-esteem or higher agression that result from the use in altering behavior.
Desert_Eagle
04-18-2006, 4:50 PM
Ok well I'll just go back to the post I made before it was diverted off topic by a falsified claim that was deleted.
Anti-spanking research is notorious for the fallacy of the single cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause) therefore I feel it is unreliable.
Morkeliph
04-18-2006, 4:53 PM
Would you care to elaborate upon why you claim it is "notorious" for the fallacy of the single cause. Maybe you could include some credible sources such as research on the subject of the negative effects of corporal punishment and how they did not account for other potential causes in their study. That would be a valuable post rather than presenting an unsupported statement of pure opinion.
Desert_Eagle
04-18-2006, 4:58 PM
First, present the evidence which you are citing before you ask me to discredit it.
Morkeliph
04-18-2006, 5:22 PM
Why don't I provide a list of some for you and you can check them out yourself since you're so confident.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CPB1R.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP3.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP7.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP10.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP13.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP16.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP20.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP23.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP24.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP28.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP29.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP33y-ID33.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP36.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP44-ID44-douglas.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP51-3-1%20CP51R3L-WEBa.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/cp70mss.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP71.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CPP-web.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP6.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP11.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP31.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP41.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP49.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP62.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP64E.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP65.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP67%20Children%20Should%20Never%20be%20Spanked.pd f
When it comes between the opinions of a well-established and widely recognized scientist and some nobody on the internet, I think I'll stick with empirical research.
Okay, lots of "Evidence" goes various ways supporting this that or the other. Now, lets look at real life for a moment shall we because lets face it, children are not laboratory specimens.
Now in general. Juvenile crime has gone up since corporal punishment in schools was abolished. It has gone up still further since smacking a child has fallen out of fashion.
So lots of things go on about corporal punishment causing all sorts of disorders and whatnot. But since just about everything is calssed as a "disorder" nowadays I think that might not be as conclusive as it sounds. Also, if used from an early age and as a last resort, not constantly because any child that needs smacking multiple times a week is probably beyond help.
SarahK
04-19-2006, 8:16 AM
Most children don't "need" beating up by their parents at all...
You're overlooking a very important point here, it's often not justified or done for ego/control/"feeling of power" reasons
Desert_Eagle
04-19-2006, 10:58 AM
Why don't I provide a list of some for you and you can check them out yourself since you're so confident.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CPB1R.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP3.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP7.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP10.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP13.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP16.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP20.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP23.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP24.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP27.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP28.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP29.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP33y-ID33.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP36.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP44-ID44-douglas.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP51-3-1%20CP51R3L-WEBa.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/cp70mss.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP71.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CPP-web.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP6.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP11.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP31.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP41.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP49.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP62.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP64E.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP65.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP67%20Children%20Should%20Never%20be%20Spanked.pd f
When it comes between the opinions of a well-established and widely recognized scientist and some nobody on the internet, I think I'll stick with empirical research.
This research contradicts it's own findings. It says that upwards of 96%-100% of parents spank their toddlers, yet we don't find 96-100% of the population in depression, suicidal, or other outcomes they claim are associated with spanking. Why is that?
Veeger
04-26-2006, 12:53 PM
The good/bad of corporal punishment all boils down to the discernment and wisdom of the parent.
For example, I do not believe that you should spank a child for, say, fibbing when asked if he at all of the cookies in a jar. But, if the child wilfully beats a dog/cat until it is nearly dead, or does die, then a spanking is most certainly in order. A simple "bad boy" is not going to be enough for a situation like that.
The punishment must be equal to the deed in question. As was mentioned earlier, if you defy a police officer, chances are you are going to get "spanked" by an adult. Can you go to DSS and claim you were abused? No, of course not. You broke the law! Surprise.
The problem rises is that some parents do not spank their child, they beat their child, on a constant basis. That is bs, and uncalled for. I was spanked a grand total of four times in my life. All four times the punishment was called for, all four times I recognized my wrong doing, and all four times the pain induced from the punishment further embedded into my conscience and psyche that what I had done was wrong, and should not be repeated.
The catch to corporal punishment is that is should not be the common response to child misbehavior. It's not that it is a "last resort", it is a situational resort. Dependant solely upon the severity of the misbehavior.
ScottieIWU
04-26-2006, 5:24 PM
But, if the child wilfully beats a dog/cat until it is nearly dead, or does die, then a spanking is most certainly in order. A simple "bad boy" is not going to be enough for a situation like that.I think most people here would agree that if a child did that he is in need of psychological help more than he is in need of a spanking.
GenocideAlive
04-26-2006, 5:47 PM
I'm not entirely certain how either side can point to anything other than specific cases that could be attributed to a distribution error / fallacy. I personally choose spanking as something that I don't think my son has needed just yet (he's only 3). However, when he's older he may get a spanking for doing something to endanger his sister or others.
At younger ages, IMO, there's not much you can do to a child that wouldn't be roughly the equivalent of your disapproval. Pain in the form of spankings just replaces the emotional pain of rejection and anger. I also think that the child's attentions tend to focus on the causes--in one case it's the pain in their ass, in the other it's their parents. The difference, I believe, is that pain from spankings can be very disorienting unless accompanied by an attentive reasoning by the parents.
Mode of discipline (within reason), from the child's perspective, rarely matters. I can remember getting spanked and getting yelled at just as vividly. It's only the beatings that gave me issues.
Veeger
04-27-2006, 10:50 AM
I think most people here would agree that if a child did that he is in need of psychological help more than he is in need of a spanking.
That is a possibility, but it is also equally possible that he/she is hurting the animal in question simply to see how the animal will react.
As I said before, spanking is a situational resort, depending upon the circumstances. In this case, spanking a child will help it to understand that when you hit something, it hurts. It doesn't feel good, and the fact that you are the one administering the pain does not make it less painful to the recipient.
Now, I'm not saying that parents who never spank their children are bad parents, but I'm tired of hearing that parents who do spank their children are. Yes, when it raises the bar from punishment to abuse, then something needs to be done -- but otherwise, leave parenting to the parents themselves. Let them decide how best to raise their children because they are the ones responsible for raising their children, not you.
U-238
04-27-2006, 11:31 AM
Spankings =Yes
Beating = No
Yelling = Not much good
Spankings induce pain. Not alot but enough to get the point across that the child did wrong and that he shouldn't do it again. However spankings don't physicly hurt the child enough to induce any lifelong suffering on psycological memories in the child with in the hour they've forgotten about the pain and thats that. However they know (Or at least should know) not to do it again or else that pain will return.
Beatings are not right and thats what many who say "spanking is bad" are, in reality, evisualising. Beating is child abuse. Thats all there is to it. No parent should ever have to beat their child in order to get their point across. Beatings is what induce those lifelong memories and typacly lead to the child beating his/her kids when that child grows up.
Yelling isn't much good. I remember a very funny incedent of a parent who wouldn't spank her two kids when they misbehaved. She took them to the grocery store and they got very wild and out of controll. And she wouldn't spank them all she would do is yell "freeze!" And all that did was encourage her kids bad behavior. Before I (or she for that matter) knew what happend she was chaseing her kids all over the store yelling "freeze!" So as you see that didn't do alot of good. Yelling is easily shrugged off by childern because it has no pain with it. They may cry or pout or make it look like the yelling did good but it's all just a show. The only time I've seen a child really cry because of a yelling was he was trying to do good and he messed up and he got yelled at. Big time. And you could see that it hurt. But that child was trying to do good and got down trodden for it. Other times when a child gets yelled at because they've done wrong is just a simple show. They shrug it off and move on useually continueing what they were told not to do in the first place.
vBulletin® v3.8.0 Release Candidate 1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.