Beating Children/Spanking

[Dark Dragon]

I think corporal punishment does work to a certain extent, but not as much as many of you think it does.

If the kid realize that you are purposely not trying to hurt them and only intent is to give them pain to stop the behavior then it becomes useless altogether. In that situation the kid mindset would be "I'll get in trouble, but it's only a little bit pain and nothing worst than that".

I do think things like "time-out" are generally useless and modern parents are too soft on their children. There are many effective way to deter or encourage a behavior.

For example, i currently go and visit my niece and nephew once a week. My niece has a terrible habit of biting her fingernails, but i generally got her to stop it by associating not biting her fingernails with getting a treat every time i come over. Also if you're having trouble coming up with punishment, foods generally works really well. My nephew hates broccoli, so my brother would always make some when he does something bad. One of us would then stand over him and make him finish every bit of it before he can go do anything else. I believe the key is to make the punishment as unpleasant as possible, and that doesn't necessarily mean it has to hurt physically.

There are always exception to the rule though and there have been enough cases of criminals coming from perfectly functional family to prove that.

[Kraco]

Why does this argument always go back to beating children so much their IQ will drop or they will get used to spanking? The number of spankings should be so low that as a parent you'd remember every one. Otherwise it will indeed very quickly indicate nothing but failed parenting or a clinically sociopath kid. A kid at the spanking age is still 100% dependent on the family, and thus the act of spanking should be psychologically traumatic. It should definitely not be "it's only a little pain every time I steal an ice cream, no big deal". It should be not only the physical pain but also humiliation, uncertainty, and all manner of other negative feelings that will generate the fear and maintain it so that it never needs to be (ineffectively) repeated.

[Animeniax]

Kraco has it right. In the right child-rearing environment, spanking is not something resorted to easily or with regularity. I can think of maybe 3 times in my childhood where we did stuff bad enough to get spanked.

The studies you all are referencing are most likely referring to something closer to child abuse. Normal disciplining of your child through spanking won't hurt the IQ, unless maybe if you strike them in the head. I suppose it could hurt them emotionally/psychologically enough so they perform poorer on IQ tests, but that link is still dubious.

[Deadlift]

Kraco has it right. In the right child-rearing environment, spanking is not something resorted to easily or with regularity. I can think of maybe 3 times in my childhood where we did stuff bad enough to get spanked.

The studies you all are referencing are most likely referring to something closer to child abuse. Normal disciplining of your child through spanking won't hurt the IQ, unless maybe if you strike them in the head. I suppose it could hurt them emotionally/psychologically enough so they perform poorer on IQ tests, but that link is still dubious.

I also agree with kraco, I was spanked as a child, not beaten, the difference being the purpose, not fear or control, but respect. It`s like if you know someone who never swears, but the moment they do you take them a hell of a lot more seriously than your friend who tells you how F*cked his day is all the time. Just like spanking, if yourè hitting your kid on a daily basis you can`t seriously consider it discipline, it`s abuse. That being said if a parent were to spank a child only when necessary the message would be a lot different.

With regards to the IQ debate, IQ is a measure of intelligence quotient, Einstein had an almost average IQ, but it could be said he maximized that potential. To make a claim such as quote on quote data has been gathered to show emotional issues caused by abuse to be linked to intelligence is being indignant; consider some of the greatest minds regarded by society lived in a time when it was common place to beat not just spank your children. There are already accredited ways of gauging emotional potential (EQ) and it is far more logical to connect emotional abuse as a contributing factor within those fields, for this reason I seriously doubt any so called data from google, which are not legitimate beyond how many people have viewed them.

In the end agree beating children is wrong, I disagree that a spanking constitutes a beating, emotional abuse is not intrinsically tied to physical force and by claiming such a connection as an absolute it diminishes the complexity of the issue.

[Sapphire]

I worked with a 4 year old today and I continued to be amazed at how fast he could pick things up, and then build upon his prior knowledge and apply it to other problems. (Like doing adding and subtracting in his head after working with blocks, then using that knowledge to manipulate dollar amounts). Not to mention his spacial reasoning is off the chain, and he learned how to read ridiculously quickly.

If one of us made some sort of mistake or blunder, he could immediately tell what the source of the blunder was, or what misunderstanding or slip of mind caused it. He's FOUR. I have worked closely with other very young minds and if you take the time to explain the logic of something, they certainly understand it. Young children aren't dogs that need to be programmed and conditioned through violence, like Ani stupidly thinks. And Ani, even if you were just trolling, I've lost all respect for you. Beating children to bend them to one's will isn't funny.

I want to teach that kid how to play chess.

It makes me sick that people take bright bundles of human potential and try to beat them into obedience. Just sick.

[David75]

Strip physical violence and that's exactly what modern societies are doing: forcing people into obedience.
But I admit this is quite off-topic.

[Animeniax]

Are you espousing Foucault?

[Sapphire]

More videos... WOW.

[darkshadow]

http://allhiphop.com/2011/12/16/hip-...ing-to-an-end/

[XanBcoo]

How can the author of that article come to the conclusion that more kids need "Tough Love" when they just spent the entirety explaining that it did literally no good whatsoever and turned the entire ordeal into a joke?

[darkshadow]

It doesn't matter if it didn't "do any good", cause what if it did? What if that whipping could've kept him from being killed; are you really that fucking against "violence" that you wouldn't even explore that option to potentially save someone you deeply care about? I guess not, you'd probably just reason with them, see that it didn't work and give up, find the person dead the next day and cry about how you maybe could've done more.
Maybe you need to change your title to "Ghandi".

[Sapphire]

It obviously didn't work because he was obviously scared to admit that he's an actual gangbanger. Well even though he lied to avoid the beating he still got beat.

Someone who was compassionate would have gotten an admission that he was actually in a gangbanger. And then talked him out of it with words instead of IF I CATCH YOU I'LL BEAT YOUR ASS.

[darkshadow]

That is a completely unfounded assumption, how the fuck do you know if everyone else in his family didn't already do this? Seeing how it's his uncle that dished out the punishment he could've easily been like "ok this shit isn't working, the kid isn't listening at fucking all".

There is always 2 sides to any story, just because you saw a whipping doesn't fucking mean it started this way, this gangbanger shit of that dumbass kid was obviously already going on for a while.

[Sapphire]

- Uncle sees gangbanging pics on FB
- Storms after kid
- Kid goes OHSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT IT WASNT ME
- Uncle goes FUCK YOU YOU'RE GETTING IT, TELL THEM ITS A LIE BITCH
- It's all a lie!!!!!! OMG I'm still getting beaten???? OMGGGGG
- Goes back to gangbanging because no one ever told him why it's a fucking bad idea, they just beat him
- Shot and killed

-Scenario 2-

-Kid gangbangs
-Uncle sees
-Son, I need to talk to you, gangbanging is dangerous, please take care of your life
-Kid denies it
-Uncle keeps talking compassionately until a dialogue opens
-Kid stops gangbanging because he's reasoned out in his head due to talking to a functional reseoning adult
-Kid is alive now

[darkshadow]

I'm done, there is no reasoning with someone who assumes shit and can't accept that shit went on that we didn't fucking see.

[XanBcoo]

I'm done, there is no reasoning with someone who assumes shit and can't accept that shit went on that we didn't fucking see.

The irony hurts more than my dads beatings

What if that whipping could've kept him from being killed; are you really that fucking against "violence" that you wouldn't even explore that option to potentially save someone you deeply care about?

lololol I'm so logical because I don't assume things even though the kid actually died and the beating did absolutely no good and I'm still clinging onto the idea that it might have helped lol logical logical.

If he doesn't listen to words, he might listen to a punishment, because it forces him to evaluate his options, unlike words. If you ask me, a person prone to gangbanging already demonstrates an inclination not to obey the rules of civilization (that is, discussions and reasoning), but rather the rules of barbarism.

Hmmm...and I wonder where he might have learned that!

Ignore me, though. I'm assuming and being illogical.

[Sapphire]

I don't understand how you think beating someone can convince someone of logic, other than discussion. Philosophers don't beat each other, they persuade each other with words.

Would you rather someone beat you for doing something they don't like, or talk you out of it?

[Kraco]

What makes you think a gangbanger listens to anybody's words? If he doesn't listen to words, he might listen to a punishment, because it forces him to evaluate his options, unlike words. If you ask me, a person prone to gangbanging already demonstrates an inclination not to obey the rules of civilization (that is, discussions and reasoning), but rather the rules of barbarism. Whether the kid stays out of gangs due to a sudden enlightement from sagacious words or due to realising his lowly place in the grand scheme of things after a beating, would both result in saving his life. However, it's unreasonable to assume this particular uncle could have Gandhied the kid out of trouble peacefully, so he tried the only way he was capable of. Either way, like the article said, he did care.

[Sapphire]

What makes you think a gangbanger listens to anybody's words?

Sociologically speaking, people join gangs (at least in America) for a sense of community and cohesiveness. They aren't subhuman who can't listen to words.

[Buffalobiian]

Someone explain to me the difference between a gangbanger and a gangster.

I'm getting results from gangbanger = gangster, pussy-gangster to gang sexer.