Government Going Too Far!

as long as my 13 yr old girlfriend could still spank me, i don't give two hoots...

 

So? There have been literally hundreds of studies that prove negative reinforcement hurts the child more than it helps them. What do you got? A rant saying how the government can tell you how to raise your child?

 

Technically they would be crossing the line in enforcing what you can do in your own household.

like last night, cop went to far by pushing me away from my father, all the way up the stairs and into my room, i got mad that she did that, and she threatened to get the cops on me.

and this time i didn't do ****.

 

Not really. If someone molests a child, can they say "You can't enforce what I do in my house!"?

Do you realize it was for your own protection? In a situation where your father is being drunk and violent, you are considered a HOSTAGE until you are secured. Albeit a hostage who is sympathetic to the victim (Thus the increased use of force and threat), because they did not want you to cross the line and also become a suspect.

 

And you wont next time either kid, lol.

On topic, glad I dont live in 'The land of the free.'

 

So, they are saying if my child is in danger, I can save them by spanking them?

So, is some bady guy gonna come in and say, "spank your child or she gets shot!"? Doubtful.

Violation at its finest.

 

How is it violation of civil rights? Don't the children have the civil right not to be beaten? Again, show me one recent study that says negative reinforcement helps a child who is young enough to be spanked. Because if you aren't doing it to help them (and you aren't, if spanking does not help a child)...then you are nothing more than a grown man hitting a kid to satisfy your own frustration.

 

Hell, I was beaten out of frustration sometimes, and other times, I was spanked because I was an ass. But I turned out just fine (in my opinion, I mean, I don't sit in a basement all day out of the light, I've had a steady job since 18 and lived on my own just as long, if not longer).

I agree, the kids do have rights, but they also have the right to shut the hell up when told to.

I firmly believe in a strong hand with my children, if they deserve it. I was spanked, my kids will be spanked too.

I mean, there is a fine line between a swat on the arse and full fledged ass-whoopin', which is not right. I wouldn't smack my kid in the mouth, that's just down right rude. And the hand slapping, ugh, that bugs the hell outta me, so I wouldn't do that. But to get a point across to my child, a good swat (no red marks) would set them straight.

But, this is all a crazy thread/topic, because there are so many people with strong opinions about both sides. So, this will go on for a while.

 

But as soon as your kid turns 19, it's ON!

 

There's going to be alot of angry 19 year olds....

 

Moderation and common sense, that's what the law generally lacks in the current world.

 

QFT!!!

Spanking is more about the parent venting their frustrations in a physical manner on what they see as the source, then actual discipline. You really want to discipline you child, set clear rules they can understand with consequences that are just as clear. Then, when they break the rule, bring in the consequence and dicipline the child. And this can be done WITHOUT hitting the kid. Spanking does not make the child understand your rules, it makes your child fear your wrath.

 

As any child should.

 

No. No they don't. Neither do they have the right to vote or bear arms. And they do not have the right to get their way all the time, despite their right to the pursuit of happiness.

This idea of spanking as abuse is so completely foreign to me. I've seen abuse, and I've spanked and been spanked and it's so mindblowingly different I don't think any informed person could confuse the two.

I'd be interested in seeing these studies that claim negative reinforcement doesn't work... that sounds like a logical impossibility, everyone -- regardless of age -- learns not to do things that hurt or don't work. Negative reinforcement is simply a concious manipulation of the human pain mechanism, who's sole purpose is negative reinforcement.

This painting of spankers as 'frustrated' and 'angry' is... fallacious. It indicates a void arguement when you have to attack the character of the opposite viewpoint. It also indicates a strong and illogical bias when you have predetermined the type of person that disagrees with you. You can't accept information that conflicts with your predetermination, thus corrupting your response and seperating from any hope of being relevant, true, useful or informative.

So... is this based on your experience with spanking? Or what someone told you? Or perhaps you've seen abuse called 'spanking' and assumed that all spankers do this?

Here's one for you: How about spanking IS a consequence. If Spanking is used as a consequence, then it makes your child understand the rules, just as well as any other consequence. In my experience, better.

If I spank emotionlessly (as I have to), then why would the child fear my wrath, when it's obviously not present?

I'll admit, I don't know a lot about raising kids without spanking, but I don't make assumptions about how all the parents who do it are 'weak' or 'spineless' or 'spoiling their kids,' I'm sure some of them do really well. Why do you guys have to make these crazy baseless assumptions?

 

(Time outs and loss of privileges can only do so much.)

 

Well, as long as we all respect each other and present our points in a civilized manner, there is no reason this debate shouldn't be had

 

Again, I challenge anyone who is saying how spanking works to find one recent article by an expert in child psychology who can back this up as I can find hundreds who will say it doesn't work.

 

It's not a challenge I'd take up because in today's sissyfied, politically correct world, there are bound to be few people willing to step up to the plate to go against the grain.

I was raised in a different era I guess...one where it wasn't only more acceptable; hell, it was expected.

I get a chuckle out of the kids who threaten to call child services or the cops if their parents spank them. Best they call the ambulance too, because they'd need it.

 

I was spanked as a kid. I prefered it to getting grounded for two weeks. I'd get in trouble and not care, my mom would spank, BAM! BAM! two seconds later it was over. Soon she realized that spanking was a joke. So then she got the brilliant idea to ground, take away toys for a week or what not. Instead of two second punishment, I got a two week punishment.

I can't speak for everyone, but spanking never worked for me, so if it doesn't work, that's the only reason to not do it anymore.

But this thing with the government stepping in and deciding how parents should raise their children is interesting.

 

pfft, "spanking" is just how you handle toddlers.

teenagers get beaten with belts, switches, and extension cords.

 

While I agree there are limits to the extent that you can dicipline your child, I just don't agree with this. Spanking? Come on now, that's absurd. Who are these people to tell us how we can dicipline our children? Look, as long as I'm not beating him for no reason and there are no marks on him, I feel I am completely in my rights to scold my child physically when they are disobedient.