BS: Spank, or No-Spank?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,Parent
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:15 AM

Shaking a baby is far worse for it than spanking. Only if the child is twisted round violently and walloped really hard while still twisted can it cause injury. Shaking used to be seen as the soft option until it was proved that it causes whiplash type injuries and bruising to the brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM

There has been strong support from some contributors to this thread that spanking can cause spinal damage, and therefore it is too dangerous an option for a responsible parent to consider.

There are many references on the Web to that this indeed so - but you will only find them on web sites set up to promote anti-spanking propaganda.

The source of this theory is very hard to track down.   

As far as I can tell, it all comes from a single report in 1994 that 3 children had "unusual" spinal damage.   The attending physician thought that spanking, shaking or other similar causes may explain how the damage occurred.   No evidence, no facts, just an opinion of what may have triggered it.

And that's the only study I can find.

I now feel comfortable in dismissing the "a spank damages the spine" theory on the grounds that there is not yet one single documented case of it ever having happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM

Bifurcation to you, Nick! I said "pedantic". Not a pedant! Like most everyone else, I shall continue to split infinitives, infinitely, or until we've got them all. That's one of those rules of grammar that is going by the wayside, so away with it! Unless it is a condition, up with which you will not put, why not join us!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM

Donuel asked "Would anyone here be surprised if George W never got a spanking?"

No. Except maybe from his mates in Skull And Bones.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 11:14 AM

I spanked in a controlled way. When my daughter was old enough to use and understand language, I stopped, because I used reason instead.

I have to say, she was a very well-behaved kid - you could take her anywhere, and she was never one of these nasty, undisciplined little terrors that run around making everyone's life a misery while their parents blithely ignore them.

Whenever I see kids like that, I usually murmer, "Hasn't been spanked enough."

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM

Well, you ARE the fortunate one, kendall. You stand outside the viciously inescapable cycle of abuse.

Me, having been spanked on occasion while growing up, it's all I can do to resist rushing out the door and whacking the shit out of every infant I can snatch up. After all, It's all I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Nick
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 05:40 AM

If you want me to be on topic I don't have a problem with that.

>>Should parents spank their children?

No, they shouldn't.

Is it enforceable? No.

In my opinion, however, legislation is often an agent of social change in it's effect on attitudes.

One of the things that has changed in my lifetime here in the UK is that it is no longer considered reasonable to hit your wife. Part of that social change has been the legislation which reinforces it as an unacceptable act. There are a small selection of songs here about the subject, but I can't recall many recent songs about it - especially portraying it as a reasonable thing to do.

Would it be better if we returned to that world?

(Slag, if you are a true pedant, then you shouldn't split infinitives!)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM

Well, we are making progress.

JimLad admits we are dealing with a complex topic. Complex topics raise many points of view, and civilised debate will examine those views from many angles.

JimLAd was the one who once said:

"1) You don't think.
2) Do not hit a small child. Ever!
3) You administered nothing. You hit the baby.
4) If you still have small children, get counselling.
There is help out there for anyone who cannot control his/her temper"

And went on to say "If I am wrong then I have offended someone who honestly believes that slapping a small child is okay. I can live with that."

And topped it with "Others would rather leave the room than challenge what they had previously thought to be true. The latter may well be in the process of changing their minds and just need the space to do so.

But now comes the realisation that it really is not that simple.

So JimLad, how are you going to deal with the realisation that there are many shades of gray in this debate?   Are you going to apologise for the offence you dished out, are you going to leave the room rather than face the possibility that your belief is wrong, or are you going to continue to bypass the issue by complaining that someone once jokingly used a gruff pirate voice in your presence?

I would hate anyone to think I was making a personal attack on JimLad - I am just curious how he is going to reconcile his previous boorish behaviour with his new enlightened outlook.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:06 PM

!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 07:32 PM

One last thing, to answer Cluin, no I was never spanked, and I do not spank.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 07:29 PM

Greg, neither you nor anyone else has any right to tell me that my opinion, based on MY personal experience is wrong.
Fact wise, I don't know what percentage of abused kids become abusers, and neither do you.I'm not going into personal experience just to bolster my argument, and if you are so desperate to have the last word, fire away. I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:36 PM

A definition from www.answers.com:

spank·ing (spãng'kĭng)

adj.
Informal. Exceptional of its kind; remarkable.
Swift and vigorous: a spanking pace.
Brisk and fresh: a spanking breeze.

adv.
Used as an intensive: a spanking clean shirt.

n.
A number of slaps on the buttocks delivered in rapid succession, as for punishment.

[Perhaps of Scandinavian origin.]

spankingly spank'ing·ly adv.



Damn those Scandinavians! What did they start this whole mess for anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:18 PM

Well put Slag: So here's where it started.

Subject: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: WYSIWYG - PM
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:22 PM

No-spank bill on way
By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

What do you think?

1. Spank or no-spank?
2. Who gets to decide?

IMO the first one's easy.... then it gets more than a little complicated.

~Susan

Maybe the first one isn't so easy after all!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM

Well, we were all having this fine discussion on wether we thought it was ever right to paddle a three year old child when suddenly a hockey game broke out!

There is a difference between sophistry and logic. Mr. Duke may present a facade of reason but the light of reason will eventually dismantle said edifice. Sorry, I do tend to talk this way and I do tend to be pedantic, especially when one seems to intentionally be obtuse. I shall refrain.

If the topic were child rearing in general I have to say that Nick's comments are great. This is what really worked best with my kids. We would explore cause and effect together. I taught them how to evaluate a given situation, especially one that might have negative consequences if approached wrongly.

When you arrest a small child's attention or halt his dangerous progress you are reacting to an immediate situation. I don't know that I would call that a "spanking" or even punishment.

Spanking as a means of punishment might be the real subject under discussion. Does anyone know how the term is defined in the proposed legislation? Can we get the subject back on track?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM

Were you ever spanked as a child, kendall?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Greg B
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

Nice back-pedaling Kendall. We've got you down from sexual abuse
victims who don't go on to be sexual abusers as adults being
'exceptions' because it's 'all they know.' That's a start.

I still maintain that you, and your ex-, are molding your
facts to fit your assumptions.

It's oh-so-very convenient to maintain that it's a 'cycle' of
abuse that needs to be broken, because, oh 'everybody' knows
that. Just like 'everybody' knew 30 years ago that schizophrenia
was a mental, not a physical, illness. The sad fact is (and it
was so when I got MY degree in Psychology) that most research
psychologists start out with an assumption and then set about
trying to prove it.

Thus we wound up with great 'scientific' support for the 'science'
of eugenics. Warm up the ovens.

Not long ago everyone 'knew' that homosexuals were apt to be
child molestors.

I don't have to defend my qualifications against those of your
ex-. We've seen one heck of a lot of shrinks who haven't the
foggiest notion as to how properly to work with abuse victims
and/or abusers. And who have some wierd and sadly archaic ideas
based on what 'colleagues' have told them and they've always
assumed to be true. When you've heard a few dozen stories in
gynocological/urolgical detail, followed by what the ensuing
decades following the abuse have been like, then you'll be in
a position to assess my 'qualifications.'

I'd almost rather have people folks speak honest hate speech than
to start mealy-mouthing around 'studies' and 'statistics' to 'prove'
their own fear-driven bigotry. I hear it around lunch tables all the
time--- there are a higher proportion of black men incarcerated
therefore 'they' (i.e., African Americans in general) must be more
lazy and pre-disposed to criminal behavior. There's not a damned
bit of difference between the connections you're trying to make
and that other pseudo-logical hate speech when it comes to looking
at individuals. Both keep the individual from ever being looked at
AS an individual, and both heap disadvantage upon disadvantage.

Heck, David Duke can construct logical 'arguments' for the hate
speech he spews. He can even find statistics to twist to his
purpose, just as you have.

It's all still hate speech.

But what really sticks in my craw, Kendall, is that you no doubt
have managed with your thrice-repeated calumny to re-victimize
the sexual abuse survivors who are here, reading this thread.
Oh, and they're here. That's one sad statistic that's all too true.
You've managed to push them back towards shame, and back towards
guilt, and back towards feeling like they somehow are not as good
as the rest of society.

And worse yet, you're not even stand-up enough to ask forgiveness
for saying that, if they don't abuse, they're just an 'exception.'

As they say in Jersey. Accept THIS.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:34 PM

I agree with Nick - I reckon that there should be something in the school curriculum about raising children and giving positive reinforcement. I suppose a start would be to make it part of the course for all student teachers who could then teach by example.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Desdemona
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM

I like Nick's philosophy: "catch them being GOOD!"

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:41 PM

Greg: Name calling aside.. there is some truth to your arguments. I believe that physical abusers are fixable. Sexual abusers, never.
Many of the physically abused manage to break the cycle but not nearly enough. I just wish the statistics were so favourable for the sexual abuse victims but the sad reality is that they are not. I can see that as an advocate for the abused, this bothers you. Why wouldn't it? They are and always will be victims. We know that.
Baldeagle 2: I thought Slag & Kendall were having a decent debate for the most part. If you can get through some of the side issues you will find a reasonable exchange taking place.
On another issue related to this topic: Self examination can be a painful process. Some would rather be beaten than face their issues. Note the references to the "honest spanking rather than the psychology". Others would rather leave the room than challenge what they had previously thought to be true. The latter may well be in the process of changing their minds and just need the space to do so.
It's a complex issue, Baldeagle 2. Too complex for one liners and gruff pirate voices.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:36 PM

I don't see any way of coming to a firm conclusion in this. Without real statistics we can't know how many abused kids will become abusers, or how many won't.

I can't speak for Greg, but I've said all I need to.And without resorting to inflamatory words such as "clap trap".

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:27 PM

How about this from the American Academy of Children & Adolescent Psychiatry?

Often the severe emotional damage to abused children does not surface until adolescence or later, when many abused children become abusing parents. An adult who was abused as a child often has trouble establishing intimate personal relationships. These men and women may have trouble with physical closeness, touching, intimacy, and trust as adults. They are also at higher risk for anxiety, depression, substance abuse, medical illness, and problems at school or work. Without proper treatment, physically abused children can be damaged for life.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM

It was hardly an opinion he expressed. It was a discussion of what is or is not fact. I think he surprised many of us.

"The reality is that the vast majority of kids -- be they boys or girls -- who were sexually abused do not go on to become abusers," he said. 'By the same token, if you look at all of those adults who abuse children, a much higher proportion of them were, in fact, sexually abused than the general public.'" Newsday 10/06

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,Seiri Omaar
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM

May I politely suggest that Greg and Kendall find some statistics or viable sources to support their claims?
Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:11 PM

Greg, I'm afraid what I did was to mix my own personal experience with my ex wife's belief. But, I can't help noting that you compare your, "less than a decade" with her nearly 30 years of hands on work with abused children.
Now, you have taken the liberty of calling my post "claptrap" and invalidating an expert's knowledge on child development, tell us, what are your qualifications?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:57 PM

Excellent point, Nick.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Nick
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:42 PM

I'm no spank - sons are now 19 and 15 and wonderful.

I've always thought that this argument is backwards. Noone ever seems to debate whether you should or shouldn't reward good behaviour, I presume that it is such an obvious thing that people would never bother to discuss it (strange perhaps though why people so rarely seem to practice it - even management gurus make huge amounts of money suggesting people have 'one minute praises' etc but you only have to look round workplaces to see how rarely people take notice). Everything is always focused on a reaction to bad behaviour. Perhaps if people thought more about good behaviour rather than bad then it might help the bad behaviour.

In the Uk I was always amused by the definition of ASDA (a supermarket now part of Walmart group) as the place that parents take their children to hit them, and I reckon that supermarkets and roads are two of the best places to watch people's behaviour and how much they take notice of the bad and how little (generally) they take notice of the good.

Bonk... (oops, fallen off my soapbox)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:39 PM

Another opinion noted.

I suppose now you will try to tell me that pedophiles and homosexuals can be "cured"?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Greg B
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:31 PM

Kendall:

As someone who's spent the better part of the last decade
advocating for survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests
and religious and who has along the way gotten to know quite a
few of those fine human beings personally, I find the statement:

>Slag, I was married to a child psychologist. I've known her for 26
>years and I have seen her work. She knows what she is talking about.
>There are always exceptions, but the general rule still is, beaten kids
>will grow up to be beaters, and sexually abused kids will abuse others.
>It's all they know.

...not only to be patently false, but one of the single most
bigoted, offensive, re-victimizing, calumnious pieces of typewritten
crap ever to be posted to this forum.

It contains the classical Archie Bunker-esque appeal to authority
to justify bigotry. Look, I don't care if you shared a bed with
C.G. Jung himself for a couple decades...it's crap. A huge
proportion of abuse victims resolve NEVER to commit such atrocities
as a result of their experiences. Then again, there is an
extraordinary amount of abuse in the world, so it's no surprise
that abusers may have themselves been abused--- but then again
quite a few weren't. When caught, though, there's a pretty good
chance they'll use it as an excuse.

The idea that the abuse victim who does not go on to abuse
is an 'exception' (your words) is as offensive as the notion
of the black man who doesn't rob people on the street being
the 'exception.'

And 'It's all they know?'

Come ON Kendall! The abuse survivors I know seem to 'know'
a hell of a lot more than just how to abuse. I give you
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, one of the most significant
peace activists and scholars of our time. How about Leon Panetta,
congressman, politician, abuse victims' rights advocate, Chief
of Staff to Bill Clinton--- and abuse survivor? The list goes
on.

The fact is that abuse victims mostly go on to abuse THEMSELVES
and damage THEMSELVES as a result of their victimization.

What's worse, such claptrap casts a cloud of suspicion over anybody
who'll stand up and say "it happened to me" or worse yet, pursue

a case for restorative justice. Because the next thing we have
is some bright boy who was 'married to a child psychologist'
suggesting that the local school district not employ teachers
who admit in a pre-screening interview or on some form that they
were abused children, because 'the general rule is...sexually
abused kids will abuse others.'

Or maybe they'll just treat the person like a leper, taking care
to make sure that their own kids are never alone with the abuse
survivor. After all, there is 'the general rule!'

And if your 'child psychologist' REALLY views the world in that
way, then please let us have her name so we can know not to send
anything more sentient than a pet rock or a chia pet in her
direction.

This is a drum you should be bloody well ashamed of beating,
and invite you to stop it right now, lest we turn up something
in your past, or your genetic make up, or something else beyond
your control which 'as a general rule' proves that you're not
to be trusted, either.

It's statements like YOURS that perpetuate the consequences
of abuse, create a sense of an unbreakable 'cycle' and which
heap damage upon damage, and get in the way of healing and
recovery.

Abuse survivors didn't choose to be abused.

Can you say the same about your spouting of this defamatory crap?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM

Bye JimLad

Now, if we can get Slag and Kendall to stop cussing out each other, perhaps we can resume the civilized discourse on this thread.   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 09:24 AM

"Bye" from me too. I'll be going upstairs for a reasonable, civilized discussion with my three year old. 9well, she'll be 3 soon) Today's topic. How to dry out the "Playdough" when it gets too goopy.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:27 AM

Slag, I'm well familiar with the meaning of metaphor. I also recongize snobbery when I see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:59 AM

Right twice in one week... Whoo hoo!! I always knew it was so!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:53 AM

Yes Liz, you're right (again!) I have been enjoying this thread because, unlike so many Mudcat threads in the past, it has been a reasonable, civilized discussion between people who, despite having different points of view, didn't find it necessary to start being unpleasant. It's got to a much greater number of posts than I thought possible, in this vein. Now, unfortunately, it's deteriorating, so I'm outa here.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:25 AM

Thank you Cluin! Finally, someone understands completely the true force of logic!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:33 PM

BaldEagle2: No you didn't offend me. I didn't know where you were coming from with all of the "Aaaaaarrrrs" and I get that all too often. Re your misinterpretation of what I wrote. Not necessary. I usually get my point across quite well by myself. I will make apologies if I accidentally offend anyone. Want a debate? Maybe try something a little more cerebral than "Arrr Jim Lad, and it is ye who shall be inside the cask tonight!"

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:55 PM

I know what I know and I know I'm right. Everyone who disagrees with me needs psychiatric help.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:23 PM

Jim Lad

Sorry Jim - I thought your handle was taken after young Jim Hawkings of Treasure Ireland fame.   I used the pirate talk simply to put you at your ease.   I unreservedly apologise if I caused you offence.

You will recall that I invited you to debate your point of view on this vexed topic.   

You replied that you are right, you will not compromise and then went on to repeat the points you had previously made.

And your offensiveness to others is something that you can live with.

Ok. No debate with you.

Next.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 09:37 PM

No kendall. We are not discussing pork. That is what is known as an analogy or and extended metaphor. Analogy means that you let one thing represent another so as to depict or highlight some aspect of the thing in question. A metaphor is a literary device wherein you allow one thing to represent another for the same intents and purposes as an analogy. Please don't not try and say that I was trying to talk about pork.

I am so happy that your lady is well educated and I just have to trust your judgment that she is one of the most intelligent people you have ever met. That is not in dispute. Reread my statements. The "truth" as you understand it to be is not in question either.

Enjoy your otherwise, fine day.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM

Slag, we are not discussing pork. And, I guarantee that her degrees are ALL ligimate.She's also one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. I stand by what I know to be the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:18 PM

Some people don't think there's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:11 PM

Better a loving slap than a brain damaging shake.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:05 PM

BaldEagle2: All of that weird pirate stuff aside, you sound like a Skinner fan. I am not. There is a time for compromise and this is just not one of those times. Any violent act inflicted upon a child is abuse. There is no debate. Don't you wonder, when you see what some of these bloggers are owning up to, just how bad the situation really was. Sometimes a simple statement, like some of those we have witnessed here, is more a measuring stick than a declaration of their own beliefs. Thus, if someone makes an outrageous statement like "The slaps I've administered didn't even move a small child physically at all." then I would have to say that an honest response is not only necessary but may well be what the writer was trying to encourage.
If I am wrong then I have offended someone who honestly believes that slapping a small child is okay. I can live with that.
Now: Do you often revert to your gruff pirate voice during times of stress or is that what you sound like inside your own head?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM

Shame that what was a sensible, well reasoned and dignified discussion has deteriorated into name calling and personal abuse.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM

kendall, as one of my profs once said to me, "Just because there'e a little extra curl in the tail doesn't necessarily mean there's any more pork up front."

Degrees can be had by the bushel. You can buy them outright. You can get them because of your Daddy' name. You can attend Tijuana Tech or you can just print your own. I'll repeat: APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS A FALLACY. Google informal fallacies if you don't believe me (that, in itself is a form of "appeal to authority"). In fact, that's something that all posters should do. Rules of logic are rules of REASON. Wouldn't you agree that we should all be reasonable? If you present a reasonable argument then REASON carries the day, not academic letters that a mutual admiration society may give to each other.

On the other side of the coin, I am not saying that academic credentials are worthless. I happen to have a couple myself. While they indicate that you have successfully completed a course of study and have reached a prescribed level of competency it does not necessarily mean that all you say is golden.

Many well educated people have differences of opinion and they can support their views many logical ways. Intelligent discussion demands CONSIDERED opinions. Let the weight of your words and the force of your logic carry your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:37 PM

Sorry, can't agree with that middle thing you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:32 PM

Arrrr, Jim Lad, now free from the terrors of piracy on the Spanish Main, kindly offers to us his life experience as a Cabin Boy, and the grim effects that naval discipline has had upon him.   "Arrr Jim Lad, and it is ye who shall be inside the cask tonight!"    Such dreadful happenings can turn a lad's head inside out for the rest of his natural, you know

So, may I try to get some perspective into a topic that seems to be unable to be part of a rational discussion?   

The first thing I see is that the word spanking is used to describe a number of different activities, with the slapping of buttocks as the common theme.   For consenting adults, it may be part of sexual activity; for teenagers a fun way to mark a birthday; for members of a formal or informal association it may be a hazing ritual; and it is used to define a means of discipline.   When a word can assume so many shades of meaning, it is natural that debate about it become confused and, from some quarters, another way of yelling at the world at large.

Secondly, some adults abuse children.   Spanking is one of their methods of abuse; but not the only one.   They will abuse kids by any means available, and, I think, taking away one of those means is not going to make their kids' lives anymore more wholesome.

And thirdly, because some adults get a sexual kick out of spanking, that alone makes spanking a very bad thing for good people to participate in. (However, it would seem that every form of punishment ever invented in the history of mankind is a source of sexual gratification for someone somewhere.   I vote we ignore the sexual implications on this thread, and discuss them elsewhere at another time)

So ...

Can we agree that understanding that 'actions have consequences' is not an inherited trait: and that it is indeed learned?    Moreover, that it is learned at a very early age?   From experience, from trial and error, that this action (touching the flame of a candle) has a bad consequence (pain) while this action (eating candy) has a pleasant consequence (sweet taste in mouth)

Learning simple cause and effect rarely need a teacher.   But letting a child burn her fingers on a candle for her to learn that the consequence is unpleasant... well, that is probably is outside the wishes of most parents.   Therefore, sometimes the unpleasant consequence has to be supplied by a parent, teacher or other responsible adult entrusted with ensuring the safety of the child.

Can we also agree that not all cause and effects are simple?   For example, if a child takes another child's toy, the simple consequence is possession of the toy.   Understanding that the sorrow of the child who lost the toy is a bad consequence may not occur, or be of concern, to the child that took it.   There may be second and third levels of consequence beyond the intellectual grasp of the young.

Can we all agree that teaching children of all the consequences of an action relies in part in reasoning, and in part of correcting the child when that reasoning fails?   And that all the corrective measures (time out, grounding, early bed etc etc) are designed to be unpleasant is some way for the child?   The simple (pleasurable) consequence of an action has been replaced by a more immediate and understandable unpleasant consequence.   

The question of whether non-abusive corporal punishment is a valid method of correcting a child should be a simple one.   Does the long term benefit to the child, and indeed to society as a whole, outweigh the short term and mild pain inflicted by the spanking?
If you believe this to be true, I can debate with you where you think the benefits are, and if you think it false, I can debate with you on why the thought of short term pain gives you so much distress.

But if all you bring to the debate is the fact, say, that you hated being a cabin boy on the Hispanola, then we shall never be able to agree on pretty much anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 12:11 PM

MBSLynne: What will you do? Give me a time out? Read your own reference to slapping the baby. You're not the only one on this thread with the same problem but that should give you little comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:37 AM

Slag, as I stated, my ex wife was far more qualified to raise children than any hillbilly. Why do you have a problem with degrees? If you study a problem for 20 years, and you have normal intelligence, doesn't it follow that you know more about it than someone who doesn't even know there IS a problem?

I've run into this reverse snobbery thing before and it always irritates me. I know what I know because I saw it with my own eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM

Jim Lad, please do no tell me what to do. I do not need counselling for smacking my children maybe half a dozen times in their lives. You have your opinion and I have mine. You believe I am wrong but I believe you are

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:16 AM

MBSLynne
"I do think you'd have to hit pretty hard to damage a kid's spine. The slaps I've administered didn't even move a small child physically at all."
1) You don't think.
2) Do not hit a small child. Ever!
3) You administered nothing. You hit the baby.
4) If you still have small children, get counselling.
There is help out there for anyone who cannot control his/her temper.
The moment you begin to raise your voice or your hands you have begun to lose control. That's fixable.