Is it okay for parents to hit their children?

[ilovegold69]

5char

burn hurt after u have burn go ouchie ouch

slap go away after short time

me think about burn after ouchie ouch because burn stay on skin

I think i've clearly explained my points and at this point it's just wild conjecture and hypotheticals. If you think i'm naive please go ask someone who has more experience in the field.

Don't hit your children.
Don't fling your shit like a monkey around your children.

 

[SmokeHut]

burn hurt after u have burn go ouchie ouch

slap go away after short time

me think about burn after ouchie ouch because burn stay on skin

I think i've clearly explained my points and at this point it's just wild conjecture and hypotheticals. If you think i'm naive please go ask someone who has more experience in the field.

Don't hit your children.
Don't fling your shit like a monkey around your children.

You haven't really explained your points well. It now seems like you're preaching.

For example; you claimed that without a doubt it has lasting life time affects which "Fuck You Up" later on in life. However, this is countered by the fact our last generation were beaten at home as well as at school for misbehavior. Yet, your example does not affect the majority. Nor with me also, who was beaten for bad behavior it hasn't caused me any problems.

You take a comment, take it to the extreme then talk about monkey shit. For someone who is studying this, it's clearly not providing you with any logical arguments.

 

[ilovegold69]

You haven't really explained your points well. It now seems like you're preaching.

For example; you claimed that without a doubt it has lasting life time affects which "Fuck You Up" later on in life. However, this is countered by the fact our last generation were beaten at home as well as at school for misbehavior. Yet, your example does not affect the majority. Nor with me also, who was beaten for bad behavior it hasn't caused me any problems.

You take a comment, take it to the extreme then talk about monkey shit. For someone who is studying this, it's clearly not providing you with any logical arguments.

Or maybe you just don't understand that I'm trying to make the point that no physical discipline is necessary to properly parent your children.

you claimed that without a doubt it has lasting life time affects which "Fuck You Up" later on in life.

no I didn't

Statistically you are more likely to be a more physically violent adult (among other things) and exponentially more likely to hit your children.

yeah, no I didn't

I'm obviously an extremist for this belief, though.

On a more serious note the only thing I'm saying is that physically disciplining a child in any way is just not the best way to raise your children. That isn't even just my opinion this is a generally accepted among developmental psychologists. You can google this right now and read off a plethora of reasons why not to do this. I'm making an argument at a ground level because it's, quite frankly, easier and in my opinion just as conclusive.

 

[Kyron]

I used to get beaten alot by my dad back when I was younger, still can remember some times. I feel like it made me into the person I'm today and I find that hard to live with, I could've been another person if he didn't do it. Ofcourse I don't know how it changed me but I'm pretty sure it has affected me. Don't think you should ever hit your kids.

On a side note I don't have any contact with him anymore.

 

[SmokeHut]

This is neither nurturing nor a mentally stable position for any child to be in and will inevitably fuck up something later on in life. A society who relies on physical abuse for punishment is only teaching the younger population how to get their way with violence.

Inevitably - as is certain to happen; unavoidably.

Well at least we cleared that up.

I strongly believe that if you aren't strict on children and use physical discipline to erase particular behaviors then they will only grow exponentially. Especially if you're "weak" in your approach. ( weak in handling the punishment for the situation i.e a ticking off for something very bad )

Now back to the actual point I made to you, what is the correct approach in your opinion to that situation *point I made earlier.

I used to get beaten alot by my dad back when I was younger, still can remember some times. I feel like it made me into the person I'm today and I find that hard to live with, I could've been another person if he didn't do it. Ofcourse I don't know how it changed me but I'm pretty sure it has affected me. Don't think you should ever hit your kids.

On a side note I don't have any contact with him anymore.

Though your situation is rough, and is clear from what you've wrote that this has had a lasting affect in your life. I assume the beatings you received were far more severe than a spanking ?

 

From most experiences I've encountered, personally most children grow up even more rebelious as a result of "hitting" by parents. In some other circumstances, they can be more respectful to their parents, but still grow up rebelious to society, rarely have I seen or heard of children growing up to be completely and utterly innocent, respectful as a result of being hit as a punishment when they were children.

I personally would not be able to hit my child, and find it disgusting/ repulsive to even want to hit a child, especially my own flesh and blood, words wont hurt you coming from a child, but beating them will most likely set a lasting emotional/physicial/mental effect on them. (If I'm using empathy.)

Hitting tends to result in abuse, where is the line? Spanking? Slapping? Pushing? Shoving? Punching? Whipping/Slashing (belt)? burning with a hot spoon? forcing a child to shower in cold water? Making them eat soap? <-- All relevant forms of punishments that have been used.

If you're telling me children will be better off from being hit, you're very mis-informed, or you were hit as a punishment, and grew up scared of your parents, or you feel it then "acceptable", right to hit others, even minors.

I believe punishments are necessary to children, however I do not feel physical punishment is, but rather the "go sit on the naughty step", "stay in your room till you understand what you've done" (you're probably thinking the child wont come out - well we're animals we have to eat, etc). Giving them treats when they've realised their mistake.

If you have ever watched Super Nanny, you'll understand where I'm going. If you've ever watched the tv programmes, how to train my mis-behaved/angry dogs (children are not pets, but the example is there), they don't abuse the dogs, or hit the dogs to teach and guide them to the correct, respectful, abiding path.


Just think.

 

[ilovegold69]

and will inevitably fuck up something later on in life

you claimed that without a doubt it has lasting life time affects which "Fuck You Up" later on in life.

Don't use hyperbole when describing something I said and expect me to know what the fuck you're talking about. I still never said that it will 'without a doubt... fuck you up'. I would not say something like this and no it isn't cleared up. When I said '[it] will inevitably fuck up something' I used such a broad statement that could apply to the most minor of actions.

And for the last time no this is not an advice session for me to tell you how to parent your children. Go to a licensed psychologist and ask them. I'll give you advice on how to not hit your children but I will not form the discussion around you and your children.

If you continue to say that even minor slaps on the hand are what you're talking about, you obviously didn't even bother looking into it. I just pulled this up on google with about 2 seconds of effort. Enjoy.

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/pa...havior/spanking/10-reasons-not-hit-your-child

How tempting it is to slap those daring little hands! Many parents do it without thinking, but consider the consequences. Maria Montessori, one of the earliest opponents of slapping children’s hands, believed that children’s hands are tools for exploring, an extension of the child’s natural curiosity. Slapping them sends a powerful negative message. Sensitive parents we have interviewed all agree that the hands should be off-limits for physical punishment. Research supports this idea. Psychologists studied a group of sixteen fourteen-month-olds playing with their mothers. When one group of toddlers tried to grab a forbidden object, they received a slap on the hand; the other group of toddlers did not receive physical punishment. In follow-up studies of these children seven months later, the punished babies were found to be less skilled at exploring their environment. Better to separate the child from the object or supervise his exploration and leave little hands unhurt.

 

[SmokeHut]

Don't use hyperbole when describing something I said and expect me to know what the fuck you're talking about. I still never said that it will 'without a doubt... fuck you up'. I would not say something like this and no it isn't cleared up. When I said '[it] will inevitably fuck up something' I used such a broad statement that could apply to the most minor of actions.

And for the last time no this is not an advice session for me to tell you how to parent your children. Go to a licensed psychologist and ask them. I'll give you advice on how to not hit your children but I will not form the discussion around you and your children.

If you continue to say that even minor slaps on the hand are what you're talking about, you obviously didn't even bother looking into it. I just pulled this up on google with about 2 seconds of effort. Enjoy.

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/pa...havior/spanking/10-reasons-not-hit-your-child

So if your statement was so broad, what was the point in using it? How broad can it be? I dropped my phone today I consider that a fuck up. Was that because I was spanked? or tapped on the hand?

This is not a debate, not a discussion. This is you disregarding everything anyone says and telling them not to throw monkey shit.

What you provided with that source was to me only an effective use of the method..? So 16 children were "exploring their environments" half were punished with a tap to the hand, that half were then less likely to commit the same offence. So a tap on the hand of a child hurting a baby, would be effective in stopping that happen again, whereas less effective measures would then allow it to continue.

Show me one bit of evidence that shows a child ends up fucked up or any person who is fucked up because they received a tap to the hand as a child.

If you cannot provide that then you keep blabbering and preaching your bullshit for a "broad" sense.

I've already quite clearly stated that I've only ever done this in a serious event, any other time we use alternate methods to remove fun from the situation. If you're telling me I've done lasting damage to my child from a tap on the hand then you're clearly too fucking sensitive.

Edit: also stop flattering yourself by pretending I'm asking for your advice. I'm asking you to provide the correct response in your opinion to that particular instance.. Seeing how you know better, and are quick to tell me I'm wrong without knowing the right way yourself.

 

[malakadang]

No, it's wrong to initiate force on someone, even if they are a child. Whether or not evidence exists that corporeal punishment might promote negative effects down the track (it does), is irrelevant. It is not wrong because it leads to bad outcomes, it is wrong because it violates the rights of the child, the fact that it leads to bad outcomes is simply all the more reason not to hit your child (to the extent that it becomes corporeal punishment).

 

[Xier0]

No, it's wrong to initiate force on someone, even if they are a child. Whether or not evidence exists that corporeal punishment might promote negative effects down the track (it does), is irrelevant. It is not wrong because it leads to bad outcomes, it is wrong because it violates the rights of the child, the fact that it leads to bad outcomes is simply all the more reason not to hit your child (to the extent that it becomes corporeal punishment).

Children (and other living things with less than normal reasoning ability) will respond to physical stimuli more than reason. If your child is walking towards a mine field, is it wrong to initiate force to restrain them, or is it unfair to them to let them wander into otherwise obvious peril? Philosophically, it is handy to treat children the same as adults in all aspects, but given the blaring psychological contrast, does it hold up?

 

[malakadang]

Children (and other living things with less than normal reasoning ability) will respond to physical stimuli more than reason. If your child is walking towards a mine field, is it wrong to initiate force to restrain them, or is it unfair to them to let them wander into otherwise obvious peril?

You could argue implied consent in a case like that which would mean no initiation of force (You could say the child is suicidal, but giving an extreme example with an extreme subject kind of undermines your argument as it makes you wonder, why not offer a less extreme scenario). For the record, if the minefield is on private property, I'd argue that anyone would have an implied right by the owner of that private property to remove anyone that might walk into a mine with no more force than is required. You could argue different extreme/unlikely examples, but even if you did, and I do agree that there is some merit to those arguments, it doesn't automatically mean you therefore have the right to smack your child for refusing to put their knife and fork in the appropriate place after they've finished.

As to your first argument, you would basically be saying in situations where physical stimuli would promote better response than reasoning that you should opt for physical stimuli. What circumstances would they be, and how would you know that they would produce better responses?

Philosophically, it is handy to treat children the same as adults in all aspects, but given the blaring psychological contrast, does it hold up?

Whether someone is a child or an adult is irrelevant to whether they have rights or not.

 

[Kugo Ginjo]

I've read many articles saying that parents striking their children does some pretty awful things to their psych. I don't remember the exact details, but after reading through many of the articles with cited controlled scenarios I was convinced. I am very against hitting children. I think it's the "stupid person's" way of discipline. Smart people can devise much more effective means.

 

burn hurt after u have burn go ouchie ouch

slap go away after short time

me think about burn after ouchie ouch because burn stay on skin

I think i've clearly explained my points and at this point it's just wild conjecture and hypotheticals. If you think i'm naive please go ask someone who has more experience in the field.

Don't hit your children.
Don't fling your shit like a monkey around your children.

Both inflict pain. Do you want to feel pain? No.

There are plenty of examples leading to violence as negative reinforcement in nature.

Example: Lions swiping their offspring when they're fed up with how they're acting.

You could argue implied consent in a case like that which would mean no initiation of force (You could say the child is suicidal, but giving an extreme example with an extreme subject kind of undermines your argument as it makes you wonder, why not offer a less extreme scenario). For the record, if the minefield is on private property, I'd argue that anyone would have an implied right by the owner of that private property to remove anyone that might walk into a mine with no more force than is required. You could argue different extreme/unlikely examples, but even if you did, and I do agree that there is some merit to those arguments, it doesn't automatically mean you therefore have the right to smack your child for refusing to put their knife and fork in the appropriate place after they've finished.

As to your first argument, you would basically be saying in situations where physical stimuli would promote better response than reasoning that you should opt for physical stimuli. What circumstances would they be, and how would you know that they would produce better responses?

Whether someone is a child or an adult is irrelevant to whether they have rights or not.

Is there an objective reason for not hitting your child as a form of discipline? There are certainly variables that come into play such as environmental positioning and mental health. If the outcome of hitting your child was the same for every case, then I'd agree with you.

I've read many articles saying that parents striking their children does some pretty awful things to their psych. I don't remember the exact details, but after reading through many of the articles with cited controlled scenarios I was convinced. I am very against hitting children. I think it's the "stupid person's" way of discipline. Smart people can devise much more effective means.

My psyche seems just fine, as do many others under these circumstances. Why does it not affect us?

 

[Kugo Ginjo]

My psyche seems just fine, as do many others under these circumstances. Why does it not affect us?

Not to say yours isn't. However, how would you know the difference if you do not have yourself without being "hit" by your parents to compare the real you to? I think the articles main point on the negative impacts of parents hitting children was something about the children having less grey matter? And that led to a lower learning ability or something. I could probably dig up a few articles.

I had the same punishment as many as a child and from a personal opinion, it was wrong. I only resented my parent for it, for the rest of my life. But that's my personal experience. Based on that I wouldn't have an opinion for other people's children, but with the articles saying that it damages their psyche I'm against it.

 

Not to say yours isn't. However, how would you know the difference if you do not have yourself without being "hit" by your parents to compare the real you to? I think the articles main point on the negative impacts of parents hitting children was something about the children having less grey matter? And that led to a lower learning ability or something. I could probably dig up a few articles.

I had the same punishment as many as a child and from a personal opinion, it was wrong. I only resented my parent for it, for the rest of my life. But that's my personal experience. Based on that I wouldn't have an opinion for other people's children, but with the articles saying that it damages their psyche I'm against it.

What if I told you that my parents hitting me as a child is the reason why I have good character and principle? I wasn't hit just for the hell of it, I was hit because I acted poorly. If I wasn't hit, and my parents treated me as their best friend, I would probably be in jail to be very honest with you. That innate fear of consequence led me to weigh out my options whenever an event occurred in which that would be a possibility.

Just because the experience you occurred isn't favorable doesn't make it universally wrong.

You said it leads to lower learning ability. Asians say otherwise.

http://www.edudemic.com/learning-curve-report-education/

 

[Kugo Ginjo]

What if I told you that my parents hitting me as a child is the reason why I have good character and principle? I wasn't hit just for the hell of it, I was hit because I acted poorly. If I wasn't hit, and my parents treated me as their best friend, I would probably be in jail to be very honest with you. That innate fear of consequence led me to weigh out my options whenever an event occurred in which that would be a possibility.

Just because the experience you occurred isn't favorable doesn't make it universally wrong.

You said it leads to lower learning ability. Asians say otherwise.

http://www.edudemic.com/learning-curve-report-education/

Then I'd tell you that you don't know that. Unless you are an all powerful being that can predict every eventuality. Also I specifically said that my bias is not based on my experience.

I was "hit" only for "poor" behavior as well. Not only was I more inclined towards to bad behavior because of it out of anger, but I hated the parent for it. So yes this is just me.

Another mean nothing scenario: I knew many kids who got "hit" and they are the most out of control and "bad-off" people I know.

I see nothing on your article that says "hitting" children is good?

Here's a quick google searched article. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/health/effects-spanking-brain/

 

[malakadang]

Is there an objective reason for not hitting your child as a form of discipline? There are certainly variables that come into play such as environmental positioning and mental health. If the outcome of hitting your child was the same for every case, then I'd agree with you.

As I said, it's an initiation of force. If you accept that the child has rights, then hitting them is an initiation of force, whether or not it leads to good or bad consequences is irrelevant to that point. It just so happens however that there is a fair amount of evidence that supports the notion that corporeal punishment does lead to negative consequences in the children being punished later in their lives.

Why is it seemingly ok to hit children but not adults for disciplinary reasons (not withstanding the fact that police actually do hit adults, even for non-disciplinary reason!)? Also, why do you have to be the parent or guardian of that child? Imagine walking up to someone else s kid and giving them a smack in the name of teaching them a valuable lesson.

 

That innate fear of consequence led me to weigh out my options whenever an event occurred in which that would be a possibility.

Just because the experience you occurred isn't favorable doesn't make it universally wrong.

You said it leads to lower learning ability. Asians say otherwise.

http://www.edudemic.com/learning-curve-report-education/

I mentioned this before, so just to point out again, hitting children, minors, even if it's your own children, is assualt, abuse, and should land parents in jail themselves. There are other necessary protocols and methods of punishment that parents can use, a few examples, curfew/grounded, restricting tv time/gaming/sweets/treats, naughty step, stay inside your room, etc. Asians/Middle-Eastern method's of punishment may leave them with the brighest of children, but that is because of pure fear, why should you fear your parents? What kind of logic is that portraying?

Again like I mentioned before if your pet did something bad you don't hit them, you teach them..

I'd feel genuinely sorry for children that were hit by their parents, as it is just barbaric.


I also believe that parents who hit their children are just lazy, far too lazy to teach their children, and find it an easy method to just hit them.

 

Then I'd tell you that you don't know that. Unless you are an all powerful being that can predict every eventuality. Also I specifically said that my bias is not based on my experience.

I was "hit" only for "poor" behavior as well. Not only was I more inclined towards to bad behavior because of it out of anger, but I hated the parent for it. So yes this is just me.

Another mean nothing scenario: I knew many kids who got "hit" and they are the most out of control and "bad-off" people I know.

I see nothing on your article that says "hitting" children is good?

Here's a quick google searched article. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/health/effects-spanking-brain/

The article is subjective, as is your opinion on the matter. If no good comes out of hitting your child, why is it legal in all 50 states? Why is there no movement to abolish such things? Because It's not ideal or realistic.

As I said, it's an initiation of force. If you accept that the child has rights, then hitting them is an initiation of force, whether or not it leads to good or bad consequences is irrelevant to that point. It just so happens however that there is a fair amount of evidence that supports the notion that corporeal punishment does lead to negative consequences in the children being punished later in their lives.

Why is it seemingly ok to hit children but not adults for disciplinary reasons (not withstanding the fact that police actually do hit adults, even for non-disciplinary reason!)? Also, why do you have to be the parent or guardian of that child? Imagine walking up to someone else s kid and giving them a smack in the name of teaching them a valuable lesson.

SJW coming in strong. If the outcome of such things are identical for every case, then yes. This however is not the case. Does this evidence support the notion that the surrounding environment plays a part in the negative consequences subsequent to getting hit?

I'm not going to take you seriously if you're going to compare hitting children to hitting adults. A child knows no better, an adult does. The force used to hit a child is not equivalent to that of an adult in a battery case. If so, it is considered child abuse. Your child is an extension of yourself, belonging, associated to you, a stranger is not. It is your responsibility to care for that child, this includes discipline. There is a reason why hitting your child is allowed in all 50 states.

I mentioned this before, so just to point out again, hitting children, minors, even if it's your own children, is assualt, abuse, and should land parents in jail themselves. There are other necessary protocols and methods of punishment that parents can use, a few examples, curfew/grounded, restricting tv time/gaming/sweets/treats, naughty step, stay inside your room, etc. Asians/Middle-Eastern method's of punishment may leave them with the brighest of children, but that is because of pure fear, why should you fear your parents? What kind of logic is that portraying?

Again like I mentioned before if your pet did something bad you don't hit them, you teach them..

I'd feel genuinely sorry for children that were hit by their parents, as it is just barbaric.


I also believe that parents who hit their children are just lazy, far too lazy to teach their children, and find it an easy method to just hit them.

Your viewpoint on this is over critical, if not a joke. Half if not the majority of parents would be sent to jail if this were to come to fruition. As already stated twice above, hitting your child is not illegal. Your belief is nothing more than an irrational opinion.

 

[Kugo Ginjo]

The article is subjective, as is your opinion on the matter. If no good comes out of hitting your child, why is it legal in all 50 states? Why is there no movement to abolish such things? Because It's not ideal or realistic.

You're argument is that if it's legal it's ok? LOL. Giving children alcohol is also legal.

"If no good comes from letting your child pound a bottle of vodka, why is it legal? Why is there no movement to abolish such things? Because It's not ideal or realistic."

That's how your argument sounds.