Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child

[Axxman]

But unlike you I was not abused. My dad did not beat me or my brother. Discipline is painful, but when applied properly, it works. My Dad only used that strap twice. Once on me and once on my brother. Once is all it took. You and I were not raised at all alike. You needn't think you can project your experience on to me.

Just to clarify...clearly we were raised differently. You sound like you had a good dad. I would never say that a parent who spanks is automatically a bad parent. Most people think its a required (even moral) way to raise a child. As long as a parent is well-intentioned, and unaware of the truth, I don't really condemn them. Most people simply don't know that there is a viable alternative. Your dad may have honestly believed that if he didn't expose your naked body and strike you in such a way that you could "not fill your lungs with enough air to scream loud enough to express the pain"...then you would have turned into a spoiled brat. I'll give him that benefit of the doubt.

My point is to let parents know the truth so that we come out of that type of mindset that led to that type of thinking, because most potential parents simply don't know. You said it yourself..." I have friends who were never spanked and turned out fine." That flies in the face of what most people claim about the bible and its so-called verses concerning the physical beatings of children. Spanking, and all of its associated rules are man-made concoctions. Knowing that truth...why would a parent ever physically harm a child? We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are parenting techniques, absent of physical harm, that can produce good fruit.

I have an issue with anyone who knows that truth...and still chooses to physically strike a child instead of employing other methods.

My Dad didn't scare us into obedience. My dad did not use terror techniques and did not try to scare us into doing what he wanted. He instilled a healthy respect in us to prevent us from developing habits of lying and determined rebellion. It was to protect us from doing wrong and the consequences that follow. My dad was not an abusive control freak. My Dad told me as a child, "if you mess up, don't run from me; run to me, because no one loves you more than me."

He used rewards and honesty and instilled a value system. The corporal punishment was reserved for lying and and for determined, purposeful disobedience. As I got older, I obeyed my Dad because I understood the reason for the punishments we received. So yeah, from where I stand the end justified the means. What my Dad did worked.

You imply that what my dad did was wrong..even though it worked. For the record, it was wrong...but who cares right? The ends do justify the means after all. Is there something wrong with scaring a child into obedience? You said what your dad did created a "healthy fear"...I would disagree with that...but my dad would have agreed with your dad. That says something to me. I obeyed my Dad too. I became a good guy. I understood the punishments too. What my dad did worked too. Unfortunately...I cannot agree that the ends justified the means.

[Guest LadyC]

For the record, it was wrong...but who cares right? The ends do justify the means after all.

i care. we all should care. the end doesn't justify the means. your father could have disciplined you, even physically, without beating you up. there is no justification for a person to beat their child.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just to clarify...clearly we were raised differently.

That is an understatement.

You sound like you had a good dad. I would never say that a parent who spanks is automatically a bad parent. Most people think its a required (even moral) way to raise a child.

It is a very moral way to raise a child. Spanking is not abuse. I would spank my children too.

As long as a parent is well-intentioned, and unaware of the truth, I don't really condemn them.

Unaware of the truth??? Sorry, but you are hardly a beacon of truth so you can drop the condescending garbage.

Most people simply don't know that there is a viable alternative.

And some people spank because they know it works, generally speaking.

Your dad may have honestly believed that if he didn't expose your naked body

My dad didn't "expose" anything. Spanking a bare bottom is how it used to be done. But I understand you have to paint this to be as malicious as possible in order to have an argument. I guess that's easier than having integrity.

and strike you in such a way that you could "not fill your lungs with enough air to scream loud enough to express the pain"...then you would have turned into a spoiled brat. I'll give him that benefit of the doubt

No, my dad did it so that I would learn that sin has consequences. He did it to make me teachable so that I would listen to him and respect him. He made it hurt so that I would not have to spanked over and over and over again.

My point is to let parents know the truth so that we come out of that type of mindset that led to that type of thinking, because most potential parents simply don't know.

What mindset??? Spanking is not wrong, immoral or abusive. There is no mindset to change.

You said it yourself..." I have friends who were never spanked and turned out fine." That flies in the face of what most people claim about the bible and its so-called verses concerning the physical beatings of children.

No, it doesn't. And that is not an argument agaisnt spanking.

[Guest shiloh357]

Spanking, and all of its associated rules are man-made concoctions.

So is, standing in a corner, time-outs, grounding, loss of privileges, etc.

Knowing that truth...why would a parent ever physically harm a child?

There is a difference between causing pain and harming someone. Discipline is supposed to hurt. It is supposed to be painful and memorable, otherwise what is the point?

We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are parenting techniques, absent of physical harm, that can produce good fruit.

And spanking is one of them.

I have an issue with anyone who knows that truth...and still chooses to physically strike a child instead of employing other methods.

What truth? You haven't really made an intelligent case against spanking.

[Axxman]

It is a very moral way to raise a child. Spanking is not abuse. I would spank my children too.

You would? That implies that you haven't yet had to make that decision. There is a BIG gaping chasm between saying you will strike a child, and actually physically causing them harm. Trust me...I used to talk up the joys of spanking quite well. I even wrote a letter to a know-it-all child psychologist who wrote a scathing article about parents who spank. I let her know exactly how spanking should be done in a loving environment. Then came the reality of actually hitting a child...it was much different than I supposed it would be.

Unaware of the truth??? Sorry, but you are hardly a beacon of truth so you can drop the condescending garbage.

So said the pot to the kettle...hehe.

The truth I am referring to is one that you have already claimed. Children can be raised to be perfectly good and God-loving people without being hit by their parents. There was no intent of condescension in the statement. It was, in fact, an attempt at providing an excuse to parents who may be well-intentioned.

And some people spank because they know it works, generally speaking.

Now we are back to the 'ends justify the means.' Should it be done just because it has worked in some kids? Kids will react to physical harm in different ways. Just as I am an example that not every kid who experiences abuse, will become abusive. That doesn't mean that abuse is a viable option...no rational person would claim that. But somehow we've adopted the idea that because some kids who are physically hit by their parents turn out okay, then hitting a child is a viable option.

My dad didn't "expose" anything. Spanking a bare bottom is how it used to be done. But I understand you have to paint this to be as malicious as possible in order to have an argument. I guess that's easier than having integrity.

You are parsing words. The intent of the whole comment was to understand that your dad honestly believed that his actions were the only way to save you. It was not intended as an attack on your father or his actions in any way. Your naked bottom was exposed, thats an accurate description based on your own words. Your reaction to the description might say something....

What mindset??? Spanking is not wrong, immoral or abusive. There is no mindset to change.

The mindset that needs to change is that spanking is either biblical or required. Spanking is not in the bible. Spanking is not required to raise good children. Which brings us back to the question that nobody wants to answer plainly... If it is not required to hit a child, then why do it?

So is, standing in a corner, time-outs, grounding, loss of privileges, etc.

There is a difference between causing pain and harming someone. Discipline is supposed to hurt. It is supposed to be painful and memorable, otherwise what is the point?

Discipline does not have to be physically painful. In fact, the vast majority of adults never experience physically painful discipline after they leave the care of their parents. Discipline should be memorable, and it should have consequences...but physically harming or causing pain to a child is not required, and is not a guarantee of positive fruit.

And for the record...you are right. Standing in a corner, time-outs, grounding, loss of privileges, and other such methods are also mostly man-made forms of discipline. The difference is that none of those things physically harm a child. Thats a BIG difference in my mind.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jan 29 2010, 05:35 PM)

It is a very moral way to raise a child. Spanking is not abuse. I would spank my children too.

You would? That implies that you haven't yet had to make that decision. There is a BIG gaping chasm between saying you will strike a child, and actually physically causing them harm. Trust me...I used to talk up the joys of spanking quite well. I even wrote a letter to a know-it-all child psychologist who wrote a scathing article about parents who spank. I let her know exactly how spanking should be done in a loving environment. Then came the reality of actually hitting a child...it was much different than I supposed it would be.

The difference between you and me is that I can acknowledge the difference between spanking and "striking" (which implies abuse). Spanking is painful but doesn't cause harm. I would follow the example my dad set in the way he set it and under the same motivations he had, which you apparently know nothing about.

The truth I am referring to is one that you have already claimed. Children can be raised to be perfectly good and God-loving people without being hit by their parents..

Which is not an argument against spanking. Everyone is different, and certain techniques work better on different children. If a parent can achieve the same results my dad without spanking, that is fine. I am not saying that my dad's method must be the method of choice for everyone. I am saying that what my dad did worked. You may not like that it worked, but in our situation, it did. My dad knew what He was doing, and it ended up working quite well.

My dad detected that seed of rebellion early in my childhood and he dealt with it before it became a bigger problem. From the outset, we understood that under his roof, we did things his way and mom's way. There were no arguments, no back talking. If dad said to mow the yard, the yard was mowed. IF he said to clean our rooms, the rooms were cleaned. That was how it went down. I was living in his house, eating his food, wearing the clothes paid for by his money and he had the right to expect a certain type of conduct and obedience from me.

Now we are back to the 'ends justify the means.' Should it be done just because it has worked in some kids?

That is up to the parent to decide. If they are not having problems with rebellious attitudes and determined, repeated disobedience and can enact discipline in other ways, more power to them. It is not a case of the "ends justify the means." It is a case of some children making some means necessary. A parent cannot afford to allow rebellious attitudes and disobedience to take root and get entrenched in the mind and heart of a child.

Kids will react to physical harm in different ways. Just as I am an example that not every kid who experiences abuse, will become abusive. That doesn't mean that abuse is a viable option...no rational person would claim that. But somehow we've adopted the idea that because some kids who are physically hit by their parents turn out okay, then hitting a child is a viable option.

This is not a discussion about abuse and causing harm. Spanking is not abuse and does not cause harm if done correctly. So frankly, you are bit off topic.

The intent of the whole comment was to understand that your dad honestly believed that his actions were the only way to save you.

Wrong. You are assigning your own values to what I said. As I have previously made very clear, my dad spanked only for cases of lying and rebellion. For other things, he employed different methods of discipline. My dad was able to employ less severe methods of discipline because my brother and I knew that dad had a limit of what he would put up with, and we knew where the boundary lines were. We didn't push it, and so dad was able to take away privileges and ground us from using the car and we did not talk back, we did not starting yelling and slamming doors and throwing stuff around or what not. We knew what his response to that would be.

If we got grounded, endured it. If we lost privileges, we ammended our actions and proved that we were responsible enough to earn the right to have those privileges again.

Spanking is not in the bible.

Spanking is abiblical. It is not advocated or condemned anywhere in the Bible and so that is not really an argument against spanking.

Which brings us back to the question that nobody wants to answer plainly... If it is not required to hit a child, then why do it?

Part of the problem is how you are framing the question. No one believes that "hitting" a child is discipline. Hitting implies abuse, like hitting a child with your fist. Spanking is not abuse and in some cases is required for some children. Every parent I know spanks, and even some of the people I knew who were not spanked as kids, actually employ spanking with their children.

[Guest shiloh357]

Discipline does not have to be physically painful.

I didn't say it had to be physically painful. I just said it had to be painful. If grounding a child is enough to make a child straighten up and fly right, so be it. Discipline has to be painful and memorable. It has to exact a price that is higher than the child is willing to pay.

In fact, the vast majority of adults never experience physically painful discipline after they leave the care of their parents.

Irrelevant. We are not talking about how adults are discplined.

Discipline should be memorable, and it should have consequences...but physically harming or causing pain to a child is not required, and is not a guarantee of positive fruit.

And has been pointed out, we are not talking about harming a child. No discipline be it spanking or whatever, is a guarante of positive fruit. That kind of goes without saying...

And for the record...you are right. Standing in a corner, time-outs, grounding, loss of privileges, and other such methods are also mostly man-made forms of discipline. The difference is that none of those things physically harm a child. Thats a BIG difference in my mind.

Neither does spanking. There is really no difference between spanking and other forms of discipline that do not cause harm.

[Axxman]

The difference between you and me is that I can acknowledge the difference between spanking and "striking" (which implies abuse). Spanking is painful but doesn't cause harm. I would follow the example my dad set in the way he set it and under the same motivations he had, which you apparently know nothing about.

Again, you are just parsing words. Spanking is the physical striking of a person by another. It is hitting, striking, beating (the bible word) whatever you want to call it...it is physical. I don't put a blanket of abuse around spanking because as I have repeatedly made clear...most parents spank with well-intentioned motives. That is not abuse. Unfortunately, just because it isn't abuse doesn't make it right. You know the saying about 'good intentions.'

Which is not an argument against spanking. Everyone is different, and certain techniques work better on different children. If a parent can achieve the same results my dad without spanking, that is fine. I am not saying that my dad's method must be the method of choice for everyone. I am saying that what my dad did worked. You may not like that it worked, but in our situation, it did. My dad knew what He was doing, and it ended up working quite well.

Just because it worked doesn't make it right. Slavery worked...it doesn't make it right. I don't care if hitting a child has fantastic results, it quite frankly shouldn't surprise anyone that an adult physically striking a child would cause the child to do whatever it takes to make the adult happy. My dad backhanded me in the face, knocking me away from the dinner table for biting my fork while I was eating...guess how many times that happened after that? Try zero! Even still, as an adult, whenever I accidentally do it (or when I hear my kids accidentally do it)...I remember that backhand. You may not like that what my dad did worked...but it did. I don't care how well it works, its still not right.

And BTW...how exactly is a parent supposed to know at 2-3 yrs old that their kid is going to require physical pain in order to comply?

That is up to the parent to decide. If they are not having problems with rebellious attitudes and determined, repeated disobedience and can enact discipline in other ways, more power to them. It is not a case of the "ends justify the means." It is a case of some children making some means necessary. A parent cannot afford to allow rebellious attitudes and disobedience to take root and get entrenched in the mind and heart of a child.

I don't think parents should be allowed to decide when to physically strike their kids. If your child is rebellious or disobedient and your only option is to physically hit them...you've basically failed as a parent.

This is not a discussion about abuse and causing harm. Spanking is not abuse and does not cause harm if done correctly. So frankly, you are bit off topic.

I never made the topic about abuse...and I've not said that spanking is always abuse. The only abuse that I've referred to is my own experiences, and I've only brought that up because you seem to believe that the "ends justify the means." Clearly, my example proves that wrong.

Wrong. You are assigning your own values to what I said. As I have previously made very clear, my dad spanked only for cases of lying and rebellion. For other things, he employed different methods of discipline. My dad was able to employ less severe methods of discipline because my brother and I knew that dad had a limit of what he would put up with, and we knew where the boundary lines were. We didn't push it, and so dad was able to take away privileges and ground us from using the car and we did not talk back, we did not starting yelling and slamming doors and throwing stuff around or what not. We knew what his response to that would be.

The problem is...the assumption must be made that you would have turned into a bad person if your dad had not hit you.

Spanking is abiblical. It is not advocated or condemned anywhere in the Bible and so that is not really an argument against spanking.

Amen! 99% of all Christians don't know that and therefore believe that the bible commands them to spank their children. If you chose to spank your children it is 100% your decision to physically strike your child! You DO NOT have Gods blessing, or the bible as a back-up.

Part of the problem is how you are framing the question. No one believes that "hitting" a child is discipline. Hitting implies abuse, like hitting a child with your fist. Spanking is not abuse and in some cases is required for some children. Every parent I know spanks, and even some of the people I knew who were not spanked as kids, actually employ spanking with their children.

That wasn't an answer to the question. Hitting implies nothing other than physically striking the child with an object or your body as a means to gain compliance. Spanking can be abuse. Most parents I know spank too. Most of the parents I know who spank would disagree with you that spanking is abiblical...I'd bet that most of the parents you know would disagree too. the vast majority of people that support spanking (this thread included) do so only because they think the bible gives them that option.

Neither does spanking. There is really no difference between spanking and other forms of discipline that do not cause harm.

The definition of harm: feeling pain so intense that you are not able to "fill your lungs with enough air to scream loud enough to express the pain."

Your dad caused you harm by every definition of the word. He just believed it was okay to cause you harm.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jan 31 2010, 02:52 PM)

The difference between you and me is that I can acknowledge the difference between spanking and "striking" (which implies abuse). Spanking is painful but doesn't cause harm. I would follow the example my dad set in the way he set it and under the same motivations he had, which you apparently know nothing about.

Again, you are just parsing words. Spanking is the physical striking of a person by another.

No I am not parsing words. I am separating spanking from your attempt to frame spankng as being on par with abuse. You are being intellectually dishonest about this.

It is hitting, striking, beating (the bible word) whatever you want to call it...

Thought you said it was not in the Bible. If the Bible does not reference spanking, you cannot apply a biblical definition to it. Again, you are trying to equate with terms that imply abuse or causation of physical injury and you have no grounds for that.

I don't put a blanket of abuse around spanking because as I have repeatedly made clear...most parents spank with well-intentioned motives.

Uh, yeah you do put a blanke of abuse around it. Many abusive parents had good intentions. There is a difference between doing what is right and simply intending to do what is right.

Unfortunately, just because it isn't abuse doesn't make it right. You know the saying about 'good intentions.'

So far, you have not proven very convincingly that spanking is wrong. People who don't spank have good intentions too. So your "good intentions" argument can cut both ways.

There are people who spank and their kids still turn out rotten. There are parents who don't spank and their kids turn out rotten. The problem is not with the mode of discipline. The problem is spiritual. Man is born in rebellion. The seed of rebellion is planted in the heart from the start. Human nature left to its own is rotten to the core. There are cases where the best parenting practices available cannot avail against spiritual strongholds. Discipline alone of any stripe is not always the answer.

Just because it worked doesn't make it right.

First, you haven't proven that spanking is wrong, and secondly, if it did work, and it is not immoral or otherwise wrong, then your entire platform falls. You don't really have a complaint, much less a rational, intelligent argument to make.

Slavery worked...it doesn't make it right.

Invalid argument based on a completely dissimilar issue. Slavery was wrong. Spanking is not.

I don't care if hitting a child has fantastic results, it quite frankly shouldn't surprise anyone that an adult physically striking a child would cause the child to do whatever it takes to make the adult happy.

I completely agree, except we are talking about spanking in order to curb rebellious behavior. We are not referring to inflicting physical violence on a child to make them do the whims of the parent or to make the parent "happy." Once again, you are unable to frame the opposing viewpoint correctly.

My dad backhanded me in the face, knocking me away from the dinner table for biting my fork while I was eating...guess how many times that happened after that? Try zero! Even still, as an adult, whenever I accidentally do it (or when I hear my kids accidentally do it)...I remember that backhand. You may not like that what my dad did worked...but it did. I don't care how well it works, its still not right.

What does that have to do witrh spanking?? See, I have no point of reference for that. My dad never hit me. I got spanked once in my life, but I was never "hit." You can recount all of the abuse episodes you want, but that really is not material to this discussion.

Spanking is not wrong simply because your dad was abusive and lacked self-control.

And BTW...how exactly is a parent supposed to know at 2-3 yrs old that their kid is going to require physical pain in order to comply?

Who said that they would. I was not spanked until I was about 8 years-old. I lied about my grades in school. My dad was not angry that my grades were not good. He was angry that I lied and then tried to cover up the lie. He wanted me to bring my school work home. I brought him the papers that I wanted him to see. He had already spoken to my teacher and knew what my grades were. I hid the papers and when confronted by him, he gave me two opportunities in that moment to come clean and to tell the ruth and I lied instead. Nothing hurts my dad more than a lie. You can call him every name in the book and he will just ignore you. It is when someone lies to him, that he is hurt the most. He did not spank me straight away. It was two hours later, after he talked it over with mom and when he was no longer angry.

The sting of that leather is something I will never forget. I also never forgot why I went through it. Unlike your dad, my dad enacted discipline in self-controled manner and he made it clear why the discipline was necessary. I was not harmed in anyway, but I got the message loud and clear.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think parents should be allowed to decide when to physically strike their kids. If your child is rebellious or disobedient and your only option is to physically hit them...you've basically failed as a parent.

I think it is interesting how that you refuse to use the word spank. You simply cannot bring yourself to admit that spanking is not equivalent to abuse can you??? You persist on using terms that communicate cruelty, abuse and causation of physical injury.

I never made the topic about abuse...and I've not said that spanking is always abuse

Yes, you have, and you tried to paint my dad as abusive. You keep using terms that imply abuse.

I've only brought that up because you seem to believe that the "ends justify the means." Clearly, my example proves that wrong.

I have not said or implied that the ends justify the means. If spanking were wrong, then you could say that. But sense spanking is not wrong, that argument fails. Clearly , you are not capable of presenting a clear and cogent example that actually fits this conversation.

The problem is...the assumption must be made that you would have turned into a bad person if your dad had not hit you.

My dad never hit me. It is possible that I could have turned out to be a liar had my dad not disciplined me.

That wasn't an answer to the question.

I wasn't trying to answer the question. I was explaining why you were not getting the answer you wanted.

Most of the parents I know who spank would disagree with you that spanking is abiblical...I'd bet that most of the parents you know would disagree too. the vast majority of people that support spanking (this thread included) do so only because they think the bible gives them that option.

Irrelevant.

The definition of harm: feeling pain so intense that you are not able to "fill your lungs with enough air to scream loud enough to express the pain."

No, that is not the definition of harm. To harm means to cause injury, or to damage. My dad caused pain, but I was not injured.

This is what I mean when I say you are trying to frame this whole thing as an issue of abuse. Spanking is not abuse, no matter how you try to couch it.

Your dad caused you harm by every definition of the word. He just believed it was okay to cause you harm.

No, he didn't. You are trying to paint my dad as an abuser. The truth is that my dad is was a real dad and a real man who loved me more than life. You needn't try to project your dysfunctional, abusive childhood on to me and my dad.

I was raised by a real man who loved his family and new how to handle fatherhood.