Eventually, if the applicable behavior continues despite the parents' attempts at explanation and reasoning, the child should find him or herself to have caused such harm as to understand why said action is wrong. I disagree with the second paragraph of your post in that I believe, if properly disciplined, a child will avoid improper behaviors of their own free will simply as they are wrong- without any sort of punishment being involved. The potential consequences should have no bearing; what's restraining them, as I'd proposed earlier, when they deem the consequences of an action to be either avoidable or dismissible? (This isn't a blanket statement, of course- their are certainly situations where I'd deem non-physical punishment to be necessary.)
Do you believe such punishments to be a temporary solution- that the child's sense of right and wrong will develop as they mature?
I voted yes. Spanking is only useful in small doses. When you spank your child constantly, then you know they'll get used to it. It keeps kids in line and I believe more parents should do it ESPECIALLY in this generation.
Actually, I don't see why it would have been banned. Plenty of people have no business being parents, and that's a great PSA.
However, if your kid is acting like that, you've already failed as a parent, and spanking isn't going to fix it. The best you could do is haul that kid's ass out of the store immediately for the sake of the other patrons and let the little [&@%!] yell til he passes out or pukes. But a kid isn't going to act that way, ever, if their parents have done even a tiny bit of their jobs. Rewarding the kid with attention and affection when he behaves well, and punishing him when he doesn't (where punishment can mean ignoring him and locking him in his room, if it's attention he's after). A tantrum like that is a sign that the parents ignore the kid unless he acts up, and they probably don't let him run around enough to let off steam outside, and have him parked in front of the tv all day.
A deterrent we'd never like to use, but kids require the order that comes with understanding consequences and not every child will acknowledge you're in charge with time-outs or stern talking-tos. My parents never spanked me, but it was the fear of doing something bad enough for them to resort to it that kept me from ever needing discipline
Location: Standing tall in the valley, beneath the shadow.
Status: Watching. Always Watching.
Re: Spanking [Y/N]
Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:05 pm
Dark Lord Cam wrote:A proper spanking should only ever be applied to little kids, as they're most responsive to it. Even then, it should only ever be a light smack. Enough to get your point across, but not enough to actually hurt them.
With big kids, you're better off following Deandra's advice, as spanking them would only make them rebellious. It's difficult to hurt a teenager who can punch you back, y'know?
@Cam: Terrorism is an ambiguity. If a child fears to be spanked and the parent is using this tool as a weapon, then it is terrorism. I am not saying that it has anything to do with anything political... Let me define terrorism: Using the fear of others to your advantage.
Again, I am not saying, anyone is behind any terror-action ... It was not used in a political way.
I was a complete stubborn [&@%!] when I was younger, I'm glad my parents gave me a clip or a smack now and then to keep me in line when I really messed up. I hate the fact the human rights activists(people who went way to far with rights that we must fear everything we do) have demonised the action... probably why young kids are so damn bratty and spoiled now. I don't condone spanking for everything, but a parent with any form of common sense should know what warrants one.
Sometimes I just want to smack the parents of some children, 'keep your damn kids under control you useless cretins!'