Page 1 of 2

Smacking Children, Should Parents be allowed?

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:13 am
by JPKTrekker
Simple question - Do you think Parents should be allowed to smack their Children and when is it going to far?

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:10 am
by Porty
Yes they should & if you believe that they should not then you only have to look at the way the world is going these days to see what will happen!! Look at the majority of youth today & their lack of respect for anything around them. Not all, I don't mean that by any means but there is certainly a good percentage and these are usually the ones that were not disciplined as children!!

I was smacked, my parents were smacked, my children were smacked. None of us were adversely affected and we all have respect for our surrondings and our fellow man!!

I'm not talking about serious beltings or floggings or anything like that, just a smack on the backside or the back of the legs to enforce right from wrong.

My wife & my parents always said I was too hard on my kids when they were younger but anytime they go anywhere now it is remarked upon how well mannered they are and what good kids they are compared to many others of their age.

I can also say that I am very good mates with them now & they understand why I did smack them as kids as I understand why my father smacked me!!

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:18 am
by Elrond
Yes, they should smack their kids. It goes too far when the kids are maimed or bruised or cut very badly or something like that. But most people who smack their kids don't go too far with it. Kids need to be disciplined or they turn into bad-mouthed spoiled brats who have no manners or respect.

The other day I heard that in our local high school, some little jerks put a can of copenhagen down the toilet and it plugged up the whole works. The amount of time for repairs: 5 hours. The expense for it: believe it or not: 2,000 dollars!

And those are not by any means the worst things spoiled disrespectful kids do. Some deface historical statues and monuments, injure other people, kill other people, and vandalize things like Beavis and Butthead do.

They do need to be smacked when they do something really wrong or they'll end up doing worse just to see what they can get away with. If you stop them from the start, they'll find that they can't get away with much. And it ends up being better for them in the end too, along with everyone else.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:56 am
by JPKTrekker
Porty wrote:I was smacked, my parents were smacked, my children were smacked. None of us were adversely affected and we all have respect for our surrondings and our fellow man!!
That's the cycle of violence right there. Violence only begets more violence.

IMHO, violence towards children should stop. There are far more effective psychological ways to punish them.

I'm against violence towards children.

A.) Studies show that children that are physically punished grow up to be abusive themselves. A vicious cycle that scars children, emotionally and physcially, for life.

B.) In today's tech-savvy age, you would be surprised how hard it is to go without. While we may have had other ways of entertaining ourselves in the post, the modern child is a social animal. Caging the animal, prevent them from interacting with their friends outside of school and parental approved activities, and they'll actually wise up to what they did was wrong.

C.) Physical disipline solves nothing. For one thing, it doesn't teach the child what he or she did was wrong, it only teaches them to learn how to not get caught so as to avoid the pain.

Violence should not be responded with more violence.

If a child throws a tantrum, ignore them until they wear themselves out. If a child misbehaves, make them stand in the corner absoultely still and not let them sit down or move in any way.

Being bored is a much better behavior modifier than violence. With violence, the child just finds new ways to not get caught.

If you think that won't work, you try finding a child that'll sit still for more than a few moments. Boredom is much better a punishment than you would think.

As humans are social animals, solitary confinement also works. Just don't shove them in the closet.

Beign bored, being still, being alone are the top three things a child dislikes most.

Violence never solves anything. You don't make a child behave by making them fear you.

Violence begets even more violence.

And people wonder why we have had so many school shootings lately. This is why, I say.

Violence towards children is NEVER an option.

Violence only begets more violence. Then cycle of violence must be brought to an end.

What are we? Barbarians? Savages? Or are we civilized?

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am
by Elrond
It's not violence, it's discipline. Some kids need slapped for the stuff they do. And yes, it is partially psychological. If you embarrass a kid enough for something very wrong that they do, then they will be convinced to stop it. But in some situations, it's not possible to outride with psychological methods altogether. The only psychology can sometimes come from slapping the problem child. They gotta know that they cannot disrespect their elders. Most parents are good parents and wish for their children to succeed in the world, and part of that success is discipline. There are some parents that take it too far, and of course abuse and neglect are two things that must be countered by authorities/social workers. Taking some things too far is what creates bad results. When a child does something very wrong though, it must be known that he/she did something very wrong and they must be embarrassed for it. Kids don't have shame by themselves, sometimes they have to learn it someway or another.

Put it this way, there's going to be evil no matter what we do in this world. That's just how it is. There's no idealistic world anywhere. Letting kids roam wild without stopping them from doing wrong will just lead to very bad results, and sometimes psychology alone will not help. Kids got to know from the beginning that they are to have respect and conduct themselves appropriately or they must pay the consequences. And if it means a few of them get beaten more than they should be - it's only a few out of several thousand. At least you won't end up with kids coming to school with guns, or vandalizing things, or other things like that. Which one's the greater evil? Smacking our kids to put them into shape even if it hurts both parent and child, or letting them roam rampant like a bunch of little disrespectful punks?

Do we really want to end up with a country full of Beavises and Buttheads? I really don't think so.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:06 am
by JPKTrekker
What is this, the Stone Age? Violence never solves anything. Now, I'm no pacisfist, but I know enough about children and psychology to know there are far more effective methods of punishment.

You cite the example of a tantrum in a store. Personally, I would just move on. If they don't want to be left alone, they'll stop on there own. Humans are social animals, children most of all.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:18 am
by Elrond
Things in these days haven't changed much since the Stone Age anyways. Humans are animals just like cats and dogs and elephants. We all operate by the Alpha Male kinda perspective of authority and hierarchy. And one part of hierarchy is age and experience.

GRANTED, some parents aren't fit to pour pee out of a boot with instructions written on the heel, but most are. If kids do wrong, such as getting into a fight and injuring someone else, well, I don't know about you, but something must be done about it. And psychology doesn't outride for some of these kids. The only thing some kids understand is punishment for their crimes. If they think they'll get away with murder, then hell, they'll do it. If they think they're just gonna get a firm talking to and nothing else, what are they gonna think, that it's ok if they do what they do because they won't really be punished.

They can't be slapped all the time. There are no absolutes, and in these types of discussions, all that most people think of are absolutes. Very early on, however, kids must know what authority and respect are. They must know from the get-go that when they do something wrong there WILL be severe consequences if the action is bad enough.

Some kids for God's sakes are maniacs and psychology just doesn't work on some of them, and when it is proven that it doesn't work, offense after offense, something must be done. But by that time, you've already lost them because you did not slap your kid when they were very small when they did something very wrong. They got the idea in their heads that they can do anything and basically not be punished for it. At a young age, they must know that they have to have respect.

In this age of mental "all your base are belong to us" psychology, kids are given psychology and nothing else. There's milk and then there's cake. The psychology is the cake, but you need some milk to wash that down with. The milk is the slapping. Without the milk to make the psychology sink in, you end up with dry psychology: and that psychology alone really doesn't make much of a difference. All this 'positive motivation pwns all' attitude is making our kids, for a lack of better words, wieners.

There are other ways of combating the attitudes of some kids. There's washing their mouths out with soap when they swear or talk back to their parents. There's acting like you're going to leave them behind at the store if they act like little spoiled wieners. There's making the kids lick a whole bunch of envelopes for things you have to mail out (making sure there's a ton of stuff to mail if possible).

Those things do work, but very early on slapping works. I was slapped very early on, and I never caused any big problems after that, even to this day. My cousins - they were slapped and they became productive members of society and didn't cause trouble when they were kids because they learned very early on that there will be bad consequences for bad actions.

In the beginning, slapping works, but you can't start doing that at a later age like say, 7, because by that time they're already beginning to found their own social and mental attitudes. Before that they must be structured a lot. They can't choose for themselves because they don't yet have that competence or experience.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:28 am
by JPKTrekker
Agreed, today's society is run by shovunist pigs. But, violence causes rage to build up. The child can't fight back, so they find ways to vent elsewhere. Do you condone animal abuse? Do you condone school bullying?

Also, you know I don't believe in absolutes. How often have I stressed that myself?

You want an example of a way to properly discipline?

1.) Back to the store example. If they act up in a store, then head away at a brisk walk without looking back. Pay for your stuff and start to leave. You tell me what child wouldn't come running.

2.) Another method of discipline could be to have them lick-seal 100 envolopes.

3.) Making them stand in a corner perfectly still without making a sound. Ever met a child that likes standing still doing nothing? You ever met anyone who can stand motionless for hours, if need be, on end? You ever met a child who doesn't travel in a pack with others?

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:32 am
by Elrond
Yes, and those things I mentioned. And yes, kids can't fight back. Are they supposed to when they do something bad enough to be slapped? No.

And I'm not saying to beat their brains out. Don't hit the kid into a wall (unless they injure someone real bad or kill someone). Don't smack the kid so hard that they end up with welts and bruises and stuff.

A small slap will do a lot for a little kid. My aunt slapped her 4-year-old son when he was acting like a wiener and the slap wasn't hard by any means, and he still ended up crying and apologizing. It's an embarrassment to be slapped. A slight slap in front of a couple other people usually embarrass a kid enough to make the kid think about what they've done.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:36 am
by JPKTrekker
Violence only begets more violence, my friend. The cycle of violence must stop here and now if we are to continue on our path of becoming a world instead of assorted nations.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:40 am
by Elrond
Firefighters set off controlled fires for one purpose: to stop the spread of that fire. It's called fighting fire with fire my friend. It's something that in some greater circumstances requires slapping. Slapping a kid lightly doesn't beget more violence. It embarrasses the hell out of the kid, ask me about it, I know that for certain. It's hella embarrassing to be slapped even just lightly (let's call it more of a flick or a tap). Makes one feel pretty low for doing what they did.

I'm not saying we should be like Sauron and pull out a big mace and like blast away a hundred people with a firm hand. LoL.

Step One: "Ok, you've had this comin'"

Step Two: Slapping the child on the cheek just a little bit, preferably in front of other family members if they do something wrong in front of them.

Step Three: "You know what to say now."

This is when the kid is like very young, and he/she will remember that most likely. We're not throwing the kid across the room. We're not putting welts on them. We're simply embarrassing the poop out of them.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:46 am
by JPKTrekker
Still, it can create deep rooted psychological issues in the child.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:54 am
by Porty
Oh yes, I am so emotionally scarred & so are my children!! Please!!! :roll:

Just for curiosity's sake, how many children have you brought up JPKTrekker??

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:09 pm
by JPKTrekker
As a parent, none. As a brother, my little sister.

Frankly, everyone seems to forget the fact that not all of us are old enough to have families yet. Myself, hell, I'm not even out of college yet.

A child is not a pet. Sure, you flick a dog's nose to let it know its in trouble because its mother did the same thing to get its attention. That's because a dog is a dog. A human child, on the other hand, is not a dog. A flick to the nose won't work.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:49 pm
by EAS_Intrepid
I have some facts that kill your "smacked childs become valuable members of scociety" theory:

Osama bin Laden has been smacked often enough in his childhood. Now he's a god-damn terrorist.

Joseph Stalin was also beaten and smacked as a child. He killed millions.

Adolf Hitler... need I say more?

Saddam Hussein - he had a father with a strong sence of discipline

etc, etc.

I just feel really pitty for you and that you don't have the character strength to talk to children in a reasonable manner. They are humans as well.