Started By
Message
re: Spanking is no different than hitting
Posted on 4/25/14 at 1:52 pm to The Spleen
Posted on 4/25/14 at 1:52 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Well for me, the line is so razor thin. You have to spank hard enough to punish, but then spanking too hard is effectively beating the shite out of them. That line is too thin for me, so I just don't do it.
I wouldn't say the line is THAT thin...
0
Posted on 4/25/14 at 1:53 pm to Stonehog
Spare the rod, spoil the child.
Bible don't say shite about 'spanking'. It just specifies not to do it with your hand. Cause if you hit too hard it can hurt. Your hand.
Bible don't say shite about 'spanking'. It just specifies not to do it with your hand. Cause if you hit too hard it can hurt. Your hand.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:02 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
You mean like CPS? They recognize it as a form of discipline as long as it's not overboard. I agree.
What does it say about using weapons like belts to spank?
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:03 pm to sorantable
quote:
1. You don't understand the concept of spanking a child
The concept? You mean hitting them on the arse?
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:07 pm to cokebottleag
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/22/17 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:08 pm to Stonehog
quote:
The concept? You mean hitting them on the arse?
You are obsessing over the physical part of while ignoring the entire premise on which the practice is built.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:10 pm to sorantable
quote:
You are obsessing over the physical part of while ignoring the entire premise on which the practice is built.
What premise would that be? Negative reinforcement? You must think hitting is the only way to convey that.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:13 pm to jchamil
Yeah I'm sure kids that get hit with belts think that's hilarious.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:14 pm to Stonehog
quote:
What premise would that be? Negative reinforcement? You must think hitting is the only way to convey that.
No, but physical pain is often the most effective and simple way to teach consequences to undeveloped minds.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:15 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
No, but physical pain is often the most effective and simple way to teach consequences to undeveloped minds
Then why limit the hitting to the buttocks? There are more painful places to strike a child.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:16 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Yeah I'm sure kids that get hit with belts think that's hilarious.
You should hear the story my mom tells of her playing truant as a kid and her dad finding out and coming home early to chase her around the house while she's wearing a homemade superhero costume.
She laughs till the tears come
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:17 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Then why limit the hitting to the buttocks? There are more painful places to strike a child.
The point isn't to hurt the child badly. Damn, Stoney.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:17 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Yeah I'm sure kids that get hit with belts think that's hilarious.
I'm sure they don't, I hated being spanked with a belt, but it worked.
I posted the laughing because you called a belt a weapon and because you seem like a huge pussy
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:17 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Then why limit the hitting to the buttocks?
Many parents I've met spank on the hands or legs.
Spanking on the arse is only the most familiar place in general.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:19 pm to sorantable
quote:
The point isn't to hurt the child badly.
Explain what the point is then.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:21 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Explain what the point is then.
Playing dumb on purpose now
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:22 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Explain what the point is then.
No. I refuse. You know what the point is. You're just trying to argue.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:26 pm to Stonehog
quote:
There's nothing special about a kid's arse that makes it different than hitting them somewhere else on their body.
The buttocks are safer than hitting on the face/head or in other places due to the butt having more fat and also due to its placement in relation to vital organs.
In spanking them on the butt, they aren't in danger of having brain injuries (you can get a concussion from being smacked too hard in the face) and the butt does not contain any vital organs that will be damaged by slapping them there. The only risk that I see associated with the placement would be a very hard hit that misses the mark and damages their spine, but anyone who is so angry that they can't see straight enough to spank appropriately shouldn't be spanking them at that time, anyway; they should be calm and collected before physically reprimanding a child. And a hit hard enough to damage the spine is definitely too hard.
As has been pointed out, CPS (not saying everything they say is gospel) even makes the distinction between spanking and "beating" a child.
Spanking reinforces the idea of negative consequences for certain behaviors in a way that is real to everyone (except those with a special condition where they cannot experience pain). While children don't always get the logic or reason why they should and should not do something, they understand pain is an unpleasant thing and that if pain is associated to a particular behavior, they will be less inclined to participate in that behavior.
What I think is more important than the type of punishment (spankings, timeouts, removal of privileges, etc.) is consistency.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:27 pm to sorantable
quote:
No. I refuse. You know what the point is
Like I already said, negative reinforcement. There are other less barbaric ways to convey that besides hitting the kid.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News