Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child

[Axxman]

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.

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.

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.

I have repeatedly said...in multiple terms...that spanking is not always abuse. However, spanking can be (and can lead to) abuse. Spanking is not in the bible, but others who believe it is are probably reading this. You object to my terminology even though the terminology is 100% accurate. You object to the word "hit" even though it accurately describes the action...but the actual idea of an adult hitting a child implies abuse. This should be setting off fire alarms in your head. Your brain is telling you it has a hint. If the word "hit" implies abuse, and spanking is the act of hitting...then maybe you need to wonder why the accurate description of spanking is so objectionable to you.

Also, there is a difference between actually doing what is right, and the intent. Many parents who spank have great intentions. They have the proper motivations. In no way does that make the action of an adult hitting a child the right thing to do.

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.

We need to prove that an adult hitting a child is wrong? There is a BIG difference between a person who can raise a child in the nuture and admonition of the Lord without hitting them...and a person who feels the need to use pain compliance.

Spanking is wrong because it doesn't always work. You can't rationalize hitting a child without knowing for certain that the end result will be positive. There is no way to know that. There are a myriad of viariables within a childs life that will have a more profound effect on the person they will become, and the decisions they will make.

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.

So you admit that the problem is spiritual...but you condone a man-made, wordly solution? Nobody is suggesting that human nature be left to its own. However, if we agree that the problem with rebellious children is spiritual, then I believe the solution is spiritual. The "rod of correction" is God's word.

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.

Spanking isn't infallible...therefore it is wrong to hit a child in the hope that it will have the desired effect. It is an irrational argument to imply that since some kids conform to pain compliance then it is okay to use that method on all children.

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.

Thats because its difficult to frame the viewpoint of "its okay to hit a child." The logic of spanking evades common sense. There is no correct viewpoint to frame when it comes to a parent inacting physical pain on a child. It has no scriptural or spiritual merit. It is a man-made form of punishment that may, or may not, have a positive outcome. From my perspective, the opposing view has so many holes in it that it cannot accurately frame its own viewpoint.

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.

Spank is a man-made word that has a definition that includes striking, slapping, hitting, etc. Its not exactly my fault that you promote a method of discipline that enjoys that definition. I happen to think that spanking is cruel, and it can lead to abuse and physical injury. Not all spanking is equivalent to abuse...not so hard to admit (again).

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.

He was a good parent with good intentions to raise his children right. Nobody would blame him for that. However, I cannot help but be saddened by the story you told. Maybe you over-hyped it initially, I don't know. But the image of a child being forced to expose themselves and being struck with such pain as you described...quite frankly that is horrifying. No child should have to endure that. I am not trying to paint your father as an abuser. If anything, I appreciate you sharing your ordeal (even though we clearly view it differently).

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.

Spanking is not right simply because your dad had self-control. I will happily admit that I would have preferred it if my dad had adopted your dad's philosophy. I do however, find it somewhat odd that your father only hit you once...for lying. All the other little problems that you no doubt presented as a child (as all kids invariably do) he was able to respond, discipline, and guide you through without pain compliance...but that lie. He couldn't figure out how to teach you to not lie without physical pain. The way you tell it...he could handle anything, even name calling...but the lie hurt him. You hurt him. His only response to the one thing that could hurt him...was to hurt you back.

Sorry for the psych101...but they are your words and descriptions and they tell a pretty common story.

[Guest shiloh357]

I have repeatedly said...in multiple terms...that spanking is not always abuse. However, spanking can be (and can lead to) abuse.

No when you cross the line into abuse you are no longer "spanking."

Spanking is not in the bible, but others who believe it is are probably reading this. You object to my terminology even though the terminology is 100% accurate. You object to the word "hit" even though it accurately describes the action...but the actual idea of an adult hitting a child implies abuse. This should be setting off fire alarms in your head. Your brain is telling you it has a hint. If the word "hit" implies abuse, and spanking is the act of hitting...then maybe you need to wonder why the accurate description of spanking is so objectionable to you.

Let me put it this way. I am referring to connotation. The spirit of your use of the word "hit" is what I take issue with. You are trying paint spanking as wrong and so you couch it emotional terms that go beyond what spanking actually is. Your terms paint a picture of a enraged parent repeatedly hitting a child in order to vent their rage on a helpless victim. That is the spirit of your posts, and that is why I think we are talking past each other. You are unable or are unwilling to couch spanking properly.

Also, there is a difference between actually doing what is right, and the intent. Many parents who spank have great intentions. They have the proper motivations. In no way does that make the action of an adult hitting a child the right thing to do.

But again, you have not proven that spanking a child as a means of discipline is wrong.

We need to prove that an adult hitting a child is wrong?

No, you need to prove that spanking a child is wrong. So far, you can't. That is why you have to resort to using other terms to make spanking appear abusive. You don't really have an argument up to this point. You have not really presented a case against spanking.

There is a BIG difference between a person who can raise a child in the nuture and admonition of the Lord without hitting them...and a person who feels the need to use pain compliance.

I see so if a person spanks their child, they are not raising them in the nurture and admonistion of the Lord??? That is again, something you need to actually prove is true. I won't hold my breath, as you really don't have anything substantive to present, other than the fact that you are adverse to spanking.

Spanking is wrong because it doesn't always work.

As has already been pointed out, NO form of discipline always works, whether you are talking about spanking, grounding, time-outs, etc. So on that basis, all forms of discipline are wrong on the grounds that they are not always effective.

You can't rationalize hitting a child without knowing for certain that the end result will be positive.

Then you have to apply that rationale to all forms of discpline.

There is no way to know that. There are a myriad of viariables within a childs life that will have a more profound effect on the person they will become, and the decisions they will make.

Which is why there is no way you can single spanking out as "wrong." There is no way that a parent can enact ANY form of discpline in the full knowledge that it will be 100% effective every time.

[Guest shiloh357]

So you admit that the problem is spiritual...but you condone a man-made, wordly solution?

And grounding, time-outs, loss of privileges, are NOT man-made???

Nobody is suggesting that human nature be left to its own. However, if we agree that the problem with rebellious children is spiritual, then I believe the solution is spiritual. The "rod of correction" is God's word.

The problem is that I am not presenting ANY form of discipline as "the solution." Discipline is never the solution. While the problem is spiritual, it manifests in physical ways. Discipline is a corrective tool, and in many cases, makes teaching the Word more effective. My dad set boundaries. We knew what was expected of us. We knew what kind of behavior he would not tolerate. We respected him, and it made it easier for him to instill good values. We listened to him when he spoke. He kept our house in order and he did it without being a crazed lunatic or control freak.

Spanking isn't infallible...

No form of discipline is.

therefore it is wrong to hit a child in the hope that it will have the desired effect.

So based on that rationale, it is wrong to ground, take away privileges, enact "time-outs" in the hope they will have the deired effect. Do you not see the weakness of your argument. EVERYTHING you say about spanking stands true for any other type of discpline.

It is an irrational argument to imply that since some kids conform to pain compliance then it is okay to use that method on all children.

That is not the argument I have made. I guess you have me confused with someone else. Either that you need to actually read my posts instead of responding to the subjective values you have assingned to me. It would be helpful if you would read what I say instead of reacting to what you think my position is.

[Guest shiloh357]

Thats because its difficult to frame the viewpoint of "its okay to hit a child."

You have not proven that spanking is wrong. You frame your question in order to get the response you are fishing for. Your question is designed to make people defend abuse, by asking them to defend "hitting" a child. It goes back to the connotation I mentioned earlier. For that reason, your question is basically a loaded question and does not deserve a response.

The logic of spanking evades common sense.

What logic??? I guess then spanking evades commonsense as well? Prove it.

There is no correct viewpoint to frame when it comes to a parent inacting physical pain on a child.

But that is only your opinion and is not actually something you have proven. You might prefer spanking in your home. That is up to you. But you have no rationale (as evidenced in your posts) no proof, and no basis for telling other parents that spanking is wrong.

It has no scriptural or spiritual merit.

Neither does grounding, loss of privileges, time-outs, etc.

It is a man-made form of punishment that may, or may not, have a positive outcome. From my perspective, the opposing view has so many holes in it that it cannot accurately frame its own viewpoint.

The problem here is that the opposing viewpoint (myself) has not promoted spanking as the only 100% effective form of discipline. You are critizing my position for views that are not part of my position.

It s just classic Axxman debate tactic. You put the lie in my mouth and then argue agaisnt. You characterize my position as promoting abuse and holding spanking up as the end all, be all form of discipline and then argue agaisnt those values. You cannot really present a substantive argument and you are as unconvincing now as you were before.

He was a good parent with good intentions to raise his children right. Nobody would blame him for that. However, I cannot help but be saddened by the story you told.

Here comes the condescending garbage again.

Maybe you over-hyped it initially, I don't know. But the image of a child being forced to expose themselves and being struck with such pain as you described...quite frankly that is horrifying.

I realize you limp-wristed types can't handle understanding what being a real man is about.

No child should have to endure that.

It is painful, but it is memorable and it was corrective. It was one of the best things he ever did for me.

I am not trying to paint your father as an abuser.

Yes you are.

If anything, I appreciate you sharing your ordeal (even though we clearly view it differently).

I view it the right way. You view it the way you want to view it in order to paint my dad as abuser, even though you don't have the integrity to admit it.

[Guest shiloh357]

Spanking is not right simply because your dad had self-control.

I dd not say it was right because he had self-control. I said he did it right because he had self-control.

I will happily admit that I would have preferred it if my dad had adopted your dad's philosophy. I do however, find it somewhat odd that your father only hit you once...for lying.

What is odd about that? My dad was not an abuser. Corporal punishment was reserved for lying and for outright disobedience and even for disrespecting our mother. He made it clear where the boundaries are.

All the other little problems that you no doubt presented as a child (as all kids invariably do) he was able to respond, discipline, and guide you through without pain compliance...but that lie.

Lying was and still is the most offensive things in the world to my dad. A lie is for him, the most hurtful thing in the world. I could have flunked out of high school and it he would not have gotten as angry as he would for lying to him. I think we all have that one thing that offends us more than other things.

He couldn't figure out how to teach you to not lie without physical pain.

I am sure he could've. But he chose to spank. I realize that is just scandalous to you, but that is just something you will have to come to grips with.

The way you tell it...he could handle anything, even name calling...but the lie hurt him. You hurt him. His only response to the one thing that could hurt him...was to hurt you back.

It hurt him the most because of the honesty is the bedrock of all other values. My dad was very hurt. But the difference is that spanking was not revenge or pay back. My dad did not spank me in anger. He allowed himself sufficient time to process what I had done and decide the best course of action.

Have you ever met a person who lies all of the time?? They have no friends, no relationships that ever last. They cannot be trusted by a spouse or any other loved one. No one likes a liar. Who listens to a liar?? They cannot be trusted by coworkers, and ususally have other bad character traits that go along with it including bad work ethic.

My dad knew what could happen if he allowed the lie to get passed over with some other form of punishment, or he could allow me to associate lying with immense pain. It took me a few years to completely understand and process my dad's rationale, and it is obviously something that is totally lost on you, but he saved from a lot of heartache and a lot of problems, not by simply spanking me but through the entire "discipline package" that coloered the environment of our home and I am eternally grateful for that.

[Axxman]

No when you cross the line into abuse you are no longer "spanking."

Where is this fictional man-made line. Far as I can tell its completely dependant on the whim of the parent who chooses to hit their child. Great idea, let the person who hits kids decide what abuse is.

Let me put it this way. I am referring to connotation. The spirit of your use of the word "hit" is what I take issue with. You are trying paint spanking as wrong and so you couch it emotional terms that go beyond what spanking actually is. Your terms paint a picture of a enraged parent repeatedly hitting a child in order to vent their rage on a helpless victim. That is the spirit of your posts, and that is why I think we are talking past each other. You are unable or are unwilling to couch spanking properly.

The "spirit" of the word "hit." LOL! Just admit it...you don't like to think of spanking as hitting because it puts the wrong "spirit" on the word "spanking." You don't like to talk about what spanking is..but you think its necessary. So as long as we don't discuss what spanking actually is we don't have to face it. I have NEVER remotely painted a picture of an enraged parent venting their rage or repeatedly hitting their child. I have no need of such imagery when I am perfectly content with the perfect image of spanking that you provided as a helpless boy with his down and being inflicted with tremendous pain. Why would I have to paint any picture when the pro-spanking side has admitted a perfect one? You couched spanking perfectly...I have no reason or desire to alter what you said.

But again, you have not proven that spanking a child as a means of discipline is wrong.

No, you need to prove that spanking a child is wrong. So far, you can't. That is why you have to resort to using other terms to make spanking appear abusive. You don't really have an argument up to this point. You have not really presented a case against spanking.

I see so if a person spanks their child, they are not raising them in the nurture and admonistion of the Lord??? That is again, something you need to actually prove is true. I won't hold my breath, as you really don't have anything substantive to present, other than the fact that you are adverse to spanking.

Adults hitting a child (by any name) is wrong. People who need proof of that shouldn't have kids. Even people who "spank" know that hitting kids is wrong and it pains them to "have to" spank their children because no rational parent wants to inflict harm upon their child. Any parent who likes to spank, is abusive. Since you have friends who spank ask them if they like it. Of course they don't...but they view it as necessary.

A person who hits a child is not raising them in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. The bible (nor the Lord) endorses the hitting of children therefore spanking is not in the nuture and admonition of the Lord.

As has already been pointed out, NO form of discipline always works, whether you are talking about spanking, grounding, time-outs, etc. So on that basis, all forms of discipline are wrong on the grounds that they are not always effective.

Except that the other forms of discipline don't cause physical pain. If grounding doesn't solve the problem...then at worst the child spent some time alone in their room. If spanking doesn't work then the child was subjected to physical pain for no reason. I'm sure you can work out the difference. Or maybe you don't care if a child is subjected to pain for no reason....

Which is why there is no way you can single spanking out as "wrong." There is no way that a parent can enact ANY form of discpline in the full knowledge that it will be 100% effective every time.

True...which is why the avoidance of humiliation and physical pain should be high on a parents list.

The problem is that I am not presenting ANY form of discipline as "the solution." Discipline is never the solution. While the problem is spiritual, it manifests in physical ways. Discipline is a corrective tool, and in many cases, makes teaching the Word more effective. My dad set boundaries. We knew what was expected of us. We knew what kind of behavior he would not tolerate. We respected him, and it made it easier for him to instill good values. We listened to him when he spoke. He kept our house in order and he did it without being a crazed lunatic or control freak.

But you would have done all that without ONE spanking. Honestly, I agree with you that no one form of discipline is the answer. Discipline of any stripe does not get the best results. Its just the easy way to get quick results. Raising good children requires more work than the average parent is willing to put in...so grounding them in a room for a week, or hitting them with a leather strap gets faster results and doesn't waste to much of the parents time.

So based on that rationale, it is wrong to ground, take away privileges, enact "time-outs" in the hope they will have the deired effect. Do you not see the weakness of your argument. EVERYTHING you say about spanking stands true for any other type of discpline.

Except...all the other forms of discipline do not cause physical pain.

[Axxman]

You have not proven that spanking is wrong. You frame your question in order to get the response you are fishing for. Your question is designed to make people defend abuse, by asking them to defend "hitting" a child. It goes back to the connotation I mentioned earlier. For that reason, your question is basically a loaded question and does not deserve a response.

Seriously? the question can't get an answer because I used the word "hit". Gimme a break. The reason the question remains unanswered is because the answer is obvious. To answer the question is to admit defeat (presumably.) If good kids can be raised without hitting them, then their is no logical reason to hit a kid. If the 100% correct word "hit" is objectionable then use whatever word you want. Spanking is hitting, slapping, striking, etc...again, its not my fault that your terms enjoy such defintions. Maybe if you were more comfortable with what spanking actually is...you wouldn't be so gung-ho to support such methods.

The problem here is that the opposing viewpoint (myself) has not promoted spanking as the only 100% effective form of discipline. You are critizing my position for views that are not part of my position.

It s just classic Axxman debate tactic. You put the lie in my mouth and then argue agaisnt. You characterize my position as promoting abuse and holding spanking up as the end all, be all form of discipline and then argue agaisnt those values. You cannot really present a substantive argument and you are as unconvincing now as you were before.

First of all, let me just say how honored I am to have a classic debate tactic....awesome. Problem is, I am not accusing you of those things. I have never claimed that you support a singular form of discipline. I've no need to claim that. I don't believe you support abuse. I think you have stated your case very well, and have set the perameters that I am willing to stay within. You support spanking. You would use spanking as an option if you ever have kids. I have no reason to go outside of that, or to accuse you of anything more nefarious than that.

So, I would ask that you correctly identify what classic axxman debate tactic am I actually employing. In this case I am using the tactic of using your own words against you...hehe.

Here comes the condescending garbage again.

I realize you limp-wristed types can't handle understanding what being a real man is about.

I guess I should thank you for announcing your insults. Initially, I thought you were accusing me of being condescending. But then I realized how hypocritical it would be for you to start name-calling and such right after making that accusation. Then I realized that out of the kindness of your heart you were warning me about the condescending garbage you were about to write. Thats cool I suppose, although, I'd rather you just stop with the name-calling.

Lying was and still is the most offensive things in the world to my dad. A lie is for him, the most hurtful thing in the world. I could have flunked out of high school and it he would not have gotten as angry as he would for lying to him. I think we all have that one thing that offends us more than other things.

Hey, I'd saying lying was my hot issue too. I don't put up with it. The way I see it, you keep using words like "hurt" and "anger" in describing why your dad had to hit you. As if his hurt and anger were an excuse to hit a kid. Nobody likes to be lied to...especially a parent. Doesn't make pulling his pants down and hitting him the right response.

It hurt him the most because of the honesty is the bedrock of all other values. My dad was very hurt. But the difference is that spanking was not revenge or pay back. My dad did not spank me in anger. He allowed himself sufficient time to process what I had done and decide the best course of action.

Have you ever met a person who lies all of the time?? They have no friends, no relationships that ever last. They cannot be trusted by a spouse or any other loved one. No one likes a liar. Who listens to a liar?? They cannot be trusted by coworkers, and ususally have other bad character traits that go along with it including bad work ethic.

My dad knew what could happen if he allowed the lie to get passed over with some other form of punishment, or he could allow me to associate lying with immense pain. It took me a few years to completely understand and process my dad's rationale, and it is obviously something that is totally lost on you, but he saved from a lot of heartache and a lot of problems, not by simply spanking me but through the entire "discipline package" that coloered the environment of our home and I am eternally grateful for that.

Wow...I never imagined that liars get such a bad rep....duh! You are attempting to justify "why" you deserved such harsh treatment, as if nothing else would have, could have worked. And now you admit that it even took you "years" to completely understand. Thats just adds to my argument. So now we have a kid who is humiliated and hurt by his dad and it took years for that kid to even understand the rationale behind the event. No doubt, you got the message...but for years you never quite understood why your dad did what he did. A child psychologist would have a field day with this.

You need to go back and look at the evolution of your story on this thread. It began with such bravado and spunk about "the leather strap did his talking for him" and "if you called down the thunder you got what you deserved." Seems almost silly in retrospect. Now he is a patient man who waited to check with mom, waited two hours till he calmed down, only ever spanked you one time...lol. You are in full justify, make dad seem perfect mode. Totally normal by the way. Even I try to justify my fathers actions sometimes...fact is, there is no justification for hitting a kid.

[Guest shiloh357]

Seriously? the question can't get an answer because I used the word "hit". Gimme a break.

No, that is not what I said. I said that it is the emtional connotation which you loaded the question with that makes it impossible to answer. It doesn't really even deserve an answer, as it is based on a premise you have not really proven in the first place.

If good kids can be raised without hitting them, then their is no logical reason to hit a kid.

A good kid would not need any kind of discipline in the first place so your argument doesn't really hold water.]

Maybe if you were more comfortable with what spanking actually is...you wouldn't be so gung-ho to support such methods.

You are the one uncomfortable with spanking. That is your choice. You and you alone are responsible for raising your kids as you see fit under your roof. You make the rules and you are responsible for the results. Others see nothing wrong with spanking and they should be disparaged for their view.

First of all, let me just say how honored I am to have a classic debate tactic....awesome. Problem is, I am not accusing you of those things. I have never claimed that you support a singular form of discipline. I've no need to claim that. I don't believe you support abuse. I think you have stated your case very well, and have set the perameters that I am willing to stay within. You support spanking. You would use spanking as an option if you ever have kids. I have no reason to go outside of that, or to accuse you of anything more nefarious than that.

So, I would ask that you correctly identify what classic axxman debate tactic am I actually employing. In this case I am using the tactic of using your own words against you...hehe.

In case you haven't noticed, I am the only one willing to talk to you. Everyone else is gone. They have not been back for days. So since I am the only one I can only assume the "opposition" is me. And yes, since you think spanking is cruel, I can only assume that you are ascribing cruelty to my position. How can spanking NOT be abusive but at the same time be "cruel??" How exactly does that work?

Hey, I'd saying lying was my hot issue too. I don't put up with it. The way I see it, you keep using words like "hurt" and "anger" in describing why your dad had to hit you. As if his hurt and anger were an excuse to hit a kid. Nobody likes to be lied to...especially a parent. Doesn't make pulling his pants down and hitting him the right response.

"Spanking" actually is the right response, and so far you have not proven otherwise.

[Guest shiloh357]

Wow...I never imagined that liars get such a bad rep....duh! You are attempting to justify "why" you deserved such harsh treatment, as if nothing else would have, could have worked.

I am not trying justify why it was the only thing that would work. I was responding to your lame attempt to make my dad's actions look like vicious revenge. It is why NOTHING you say will make believe that you are not trying to make my dad appear to be an abuser. I explained why my dad did it. It is not wrong to spank and does need to be justified for its own sake.

And now you admit that it even took you "years" to completely understand. Thats just adds to my argument.

It takes years for a child's mind and worldview to develop. Children do not reason like adults. Children do not fully understand at a young age why their parents deny them certain things they want or why they make them eat their vegitables and so forth. Parents see the bigger picture and understand long-term benefits of discipline that young children do not yet grasp.

So now we have a kid who is humiliated and hurt by his dad and it took years for that kid to even understand the rationale behind the event. No doubt, you got the message...but for years you never quite understood why your dad did what he did. A child psychologist would have a field day with this.

You really don't know what you are talking about. I was spanked one time. It hurt. I worked. So far, you have not proven that anything wrong was done I was not humiliated at all. I don't know where you got that. It was no more humilating than being grounded.

You need to go back and look at the evolution of your story on this thread. It began with such bravado and spunk about "the leather strap did his talking for him" and "if you called down the thunder you got what you deserved."

But it was true and I am proud of it.

Now he is a patient man who waited to check with mom, waited two hours till he calmed down, only ever spanked you one time...lol. You are in full justify, make dad seem perfect mode. Totally normal by the way. Even I try to justify my fathers actions sometimes...fact is, there is no justification for hitting a kid.

Here is what you don't understand. I did not initially intend to debate anyone on the issue. I simply related the facts, and yes I was and still proud that my dad disciplined me the way he did and I would not change a thing.

The "evolution" of my story was made necessary by you. Your response was castigate my dad and paint him as an abuser (which you are still doing). I had to go into more deeper details and explain why my dad what he did. I have to keep explaining and reexpplaining why my dad what he did and why it was not abusive . But nothing doing you, you have to come back and spin everything I say to make it appear that I was a poor battered child am trying to defend a cruel, abusive person.

The problem with you is that you think you know it all. You jump on every thread as if you are end all, be all of every conversation and you are going to set everybody else straight. Arrogance just drips off your posts. It is why no one else is on this thread.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Feb 1 2010, 11:18 AM)

No when you cross the line into abuse you are no longer "spanking."

Where is this fictional man-made line. Far as I can tell its completely dependant on the whim of the parent who chooses to hit their child. Great idea, let the person who hits kids decide what abuse is.

I see, so spanking IS abusive. Is that your final position?

[Guest shiloh357]

The "spirit" of the word "hit." LOL! Just admit it...you don't like to think of spanking as hitting because it puts the wrong "spirit" on the word "spanking."

No it is because you are using the word hit instead of spank, because it employs a different connotation that makes it possible for you to have an argument in this thread. If you used the word "spank" instead of "hitting" or "striking," it would force to face up to the morality behind spanking. But your entire argument is predicated upon making spanking look as evil as possible.

You don't like to talk about what spanking is..but you think its necessary.

No, that would be you. Spanking is a discipinary/corrective measure. You don't want to frame it that way. You want to frame it as cruel and abusive. You are the one avoiding talking about what spanking is

So as long as we don't discuss what spanking actually is we don't have to face it. I have NEVER remotely painted a picture of an enraged parent venting their rage or repeatedly hitting their child.

That is the connotation of hitting or striking and that is exactly how you have framed this debate.

I have no need of such imagery when I am perfectly content with the perfect image of spanking that you provided as a helpless boy with his down and being inflicted with tremendous pain. Why would I have to paint any picture when the pro-spanking side has admitted a perfect one? You couched spanking perfectly...I have no reason or desire to alter what you said.

No, I described what happened. YOU couched it as abuse. If you cannot at least be honest, no dialogue with you is possible. I would also add that No one else on this thread that read my account came away with the abusive imagery that you came away with. You have ignored everything else I have said and zeroed in what my dad did. If you have to face up to the rationale, you don't really have anything to criticize in what he did.

Adults hitting a child (by any name) is wrong.

So far, you have not proven that. Prove spanking is morally wrong.

People who need proof of that shouldn't have kids.

The only people who should not have kids are the ones unwilling to discipline them.

Even people who "spank" know that hitting kids is wrong and it pains them to "have to" spank their children because no rational parent wants to inflict harm upon their child.

No one causes harm by spanking. Harm inflicts injuries and physical damage. No parent wants to spank, but they do because of the long-term benefits of discipline.

Any parent who likes to spank, is abusive. Since you have friends who spank ask them if they like it. Of course they don't...but they view it as necessary.

Yes, but that proves spanking is not abusive or cruel.

A person who hits a child is not raising them in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. The bible (nor the Lord) endorses the hitting of children therefore spanking is not in the nuture and admonition of the Lord.

That is an argument from silence. There is no modern form of discipline endorsed by the Bible, so by that rationale, giving your child time outs, taking away privileges, or grounding would mean that you are not raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.