Hitting children for education/disciplinary purposes...

[Quetzal]

Just showing you that you shouldn't condemn the entire OT over a few verses or so that you don't like. But you'll probably condemn it anyway just because you don't believe it. Oh well.

Correct.

 

[Quetzal]

When I first think of hitting I child, I think of hard spankings that hurt and even a belt (which I did get once). I also think of it in a way the couple of times I have heard a child terrified and pleading with their parents not to hit them, which really bothers me, as does hearing any parent telling their child "I'm gonna whoop that ***!" I'm also not too found of the idea of having to use corporal punishment to instill a sense of behavior and respect into a child. And, ultimately, it is illegal to hit an adult, so why should it ever be considered OK to hit a child, who is far less capable of defending themselves? I don't consider it ever OK to hit a child, and even children who are ill behaved who pretty much every one else says they need an "*** whooping" I can get them to behave for me not through violence but through very strict rules, discipline, and consequences that are consistently enforced.

I think there are limits from using a physical means to get their attention and inflicting damage/harm.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As I've said, I HAD to physically restrain my son at times. Trying to hold him down while getting him to calm down and listen to reason. When you have a child who can hurt themselves or others because they can't cope with certain things in their mind sometimes physical action must be taken in order to get to the verbal at all.

Maybe it's just a difference in definitions, but I don't consider restraining someone to be hitting them. There have been a few times I've had to restrain someone, even by wrestling them to the ground, as a means of self-defense or to keep them from doing something they would later regret (such as beating someone to a bloody pulp). Even a couple times I've restrained children, it involves some discomfort (especially the more they squirm and try to break free), but it's not painful, and IMO it isn't even close to being the same thing as hitting.

Just showing you that you shouldn't condemn the entire OT over a few verses or so that you don't like.

It's more than just a few verses.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am a little shocked that more people have voted that it is OK to hit Children.
Apart from it being illegal in most countries.
It has been proved to be ineffective as a method of correction.
It just shows how far some countries have still to go in educating their adults in what is normal behaviour.

 

[Quetzal]

I am a little shocked that more people have voted that it is OK to hit Children.
Apart from it being illegal in most countries.
It has been proved to be ineffective as a method of correction.
It just shows how far some countries have still to go in educating their adults in what is normal behaviour.

As I mentioned above, I think there is a clear line. A smack on the hand or thwamp on the behind to get a childs attention is quite different than a back hand to the face.

 

[MARCELLO]

I am not sure that there is anywhere in EU and perhaps all Europe where it is legal to hit a child for any reason.
I grew up at a time when it was thought normal to smack and cane children.
And I had my fair share... I n many ways I preferred it to the alternatives as it got punishment over with. very quickly... and I was not much bothered by pain.
However it has never been shown to be an effective punishment, and it can seriously damage many children mentally.
So that in their turn they too become child abusers.
It should never be part of education.
It does not help learning, and leads to a loss of respect of teachers, and fear of education and learning.

It is the beating coming from father that hurts,mother's beatings is just for fun.

 

[MARCELLO]

But this should not be promoted as it could have been exaggerated which is no good.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As I mentioned above, I think there is a clear line. A smack on the hand or thwamp on the behind to get a childs attention is quite different than a back hand to the face.

Or you lay down the rules, explain what they did wrong, take away privileges, and make them earn their privileges back. You don't have to hit them to get their attention, not even with a smack or a thwamp.

 

[Quetzal]

Or you lay down the rules, explain what they did wrong, take away privileges, and make them earn their privileges back. You don't have to hit them to get their attention, not even with a smack or a thwamp.

Some respond to these things differently. To create a standardized structure to try to fit all children into does not seem like it would be effective across the board. (That door swings both ways in regards to the OP.)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some respond to these things differently. To create a standardized structure to try to fit all children into does not seem like it would be effective across the board. (That door swings both ways in regards to the OP.)

I think Sweden was the first country not to use any corporal punishment against children. It is before my time and I am 81... they make no exceptions.
It seems they have amongst the best behaved and adjusted children. Their whole attitude to the penal system is extremely unusual. as it is more about reforming than punishment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some respond to these things differently. To create a standardized structure to try to fit all children into does not seem like it would be effective across the board. (That door swings both ways in regards to the OP.)

And hitting doesn't have to be a part of it. Hitting doesn't alter behavior, it only teachers how to not get caught. Behavioral based approaches though, such as revoking privileges (exact privileges will have to vary from kid-to-kid) and making the child earn them back rather than giving a concrete set date of when they will be reinstated, puts the child in a position of having to adjust their behaviors in order to have their privileges reinstated. It's not a one-time spanking or just waiting a week, but having to actually improve their own behavior in order to demonstrate the poor behaviors have been adjusted and improved.

 

[Quetzal]

And hitting doesn't have to be a part of it. Hitting doesn't alter behavior, it only teachers how to not get caught. Behavioral based approaches though, such as revoking privileges (exact privileges will have to vary from kid-to-kid) and making the child earn them back rather than giving a concrete set date of when they will be reinstated, puts the child in a position of having to adjust their behaviors in order to have their privileges reinstated. It's not a one-time spanking or just waiting a week, but having to actually improve their own behavior in order to demonstrate the poor behaviors have been adjusted and improved.

Thank you for the insight.

 

[Skwim]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with physical discipline as long as it's moderate and befitting the occasion. Smart Guy's reaction and action was spot on appropriate.

Too many people make up bogus excuses for refraining from physically disciplining a child, such as Jedster's "It teaches them the validity of violence by someone who is physically larger," putting light physical discipline on the same footing as all the untoward connotations of "violence." It's like calling an "attack" on a Porter House steak with knife and fork, "violence." It's a fallacious argument known as Argument By Emotive Language.

Thing is, many people who refrain from physical discipline because they believe it harms a child (harm as in a lasting injury) think nothing of ripping into a child's emotional, psychological or social development by belittling, ignoring, rejecting, terrorizing, neglecting, isolating, and verbally assaulting them.

Or, they try to discipline a child with bribery. Buying better conduct. This is one reason the snowflakes of the world abound. Mommy and daddy are afraid of actually disciplining Marybeth Dimples, the neighborhood.

To me, a far better way to change their behavior is to give them the momentary unpleasantness of physical discomfort; pain, if you will. It's an immediate wake up call that won't damage them physically or emotionally, and does not send the message that good behavior can be bought.


.

 

[Draka]

I have to wonder, just a bit, how many of those saying that it is totally unacceptable actually have children of their own, and if they do, if they have ever had to deal with "special" children. The ones with ODD or ADHD and so on. The ones who throw into fits of rage or frustration. The ones who cannot be reached, when in fits, verbally. Also, it may be something else to keep in mind, but children react differently to those who are not their parents. I'm just wondering, as there seems to be quite a bit of chastising type speak towards those who have answered that physicality may be warranted in certain circumstances.

 

[Sunstone]

Hello guys.

What do you think of it, and how do you put it? Do you think it is an option to hit a child for education/disciplinary purposes? Let's say maybe as a last resort if no other methods worked? And to what level of application do you see appropriate if you think it is an option?

Please understand what I mean by the word "hitting" here. I'm not saying beating the hell out of them, I'm talking about hitting in general as a concept. Please clear your mind of any images or experiences of hitting first before participating. Thank you.

Show me the science that demonstrates hitting children is both a benign and effective way of educating and/or disciplining them, please.

 

[Quetzal]

Show me the science that demonstrates hitting children is both a benign and effective way of educating and/or disciplining them, please.

No one here is claiming scientific support, at least not that I see. What we are claiming is empirical experience that has benefitted our situations. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with physical discipline as long as it's moderate and befitting the occasion.
.

This is an important point that many seem to ignore. I also include having it as a last resort when every other methods are rendered not working. Otherwise it's okay, let the child raise hell, no problem, right?

Show me the science that demonstrates hitting children is both a benign and effective way of educating and/or disciplining them, please.

There is no science in it. But I don't understand, why?

No one here is claiming scientific support, at least not that I see. What we are claiming is empirical experience that has benefitted our situations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Specially if it works without side effects, like it worked with my nephew.

 

[Skwim]

I am a little shocked that more people have voted that it is OK to hit Children.
Apart from it being illegal in most countries.
It has been proved to be ineffective as a method of correction.
It just shows how far some countries have still to go in educating their adults in what is normal behaviour.

What's your evidence?

Show me the science that demonstrates hitting children is both a benign and effective way of educating and/or disciplining them, please.

Speaking only from personal experience, I can tell you it certainly worked on me, and I never felt it was excessive. I had very good parents.


.

 

[Sunstone]

No one here is claiming scientific support, at least not that I see. What we are claiming is empirical experience that has benefitted our situations. Nothing more, nothing less.

While I think personal experience can be valuable and is something to weigh, I don't think it's a substitute for science.

 

[Sapiens]

Corporal punishment solves adults' frustration but has not been shown to be useful for most children.