I appreciate your kind words, Kirth. Of course you recognize the 'believe in Heaven' bit was placed there for you. : b
And the self-correcting power of the marketplace isn't magic. It's nature. Good ideas win, bad ideas are relegated to aberrant status. Like electric cars that cost too much and burn your houses down. When they're a good idea, they'll happen. Propping up bad ideas (writing a book about how to beat your kids with various household implements) might get you a brief fad (stupid parents that buy the book and actually think something in it makes sense), but then the idea is shown to be dangerous nonsense (kids spend time in the hospital or funeral home), and it's discarded.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did that guy really say it's okay to spank with something because it's 'too light to damage muscle or bone?'
That dude needs Jesus. And maybe a spanking.
However they also make the claim that spanking a kid in a diaper with your hand is going to do permanent damage to the spine.
With respect, Irontruth, I think the assertion regarding autistic spectrum kids is inappropriate. Nothing about autistic kids relates to my parenting healthy, well-adjusted kids. It might well be that you can't have spanking in your arsenal for anyone BUT normal healthy kids.
My point is that if you can help kids who completely lack all social skills without corporal punishment (CP), why do you need CP for healthy kids? I'm inferring from your statement, because healthy kids are more mentally and emotionally stable they are able to withstand any negative side effects of CP. That resiliency isn't a reason to use it though.
Also, Applied Behavioral Analysis is one of the more scientific disciplines in psychology. They rely on observable, repeatable events, instead of hypothetical constructs about what might be going on inside your brain.
The problem for me is that the line between punishment and abuse is very thin. A lot of parents never cross it, but there are plenty that do. Abuse is a very serious problem though, it ruins lives and I don't think relying on the famous obscenity quote "I'll know it when I see it" is good enough.
Just because a parent doesn't use CP doesn't automatically make them a good parent. Not providing rules and consequences for your kids can have serious negative effects as well. I'm a firm believer in the "it takes a village to raise a child", providing better resources for parents to reach out to when they have a problem is a big part of the key to avoiding complications.
I also don't condemn people who spank their kids. I may disagree with it and try to change attitudes, but it's still acceptable in our society and as long as you don't cross that blurry, invisible line to abuse, it's not a problem. Just because we were raised with CP doesn't mean it is the best method or one we should continue to accept into the future.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I believe there are no relationships in which the line between trust and abuse are not thin. In fact, the greater the trust, the greater the potential for abuse. THat's what makes trustworthiness and fidelity great.
Again, I don't think the issue is fortitude or the ability to absorb punishment. I believe corporal punishment works for alert, normally developing children because it is more dynamic than negative reinforcement. I think my kids know that if I fel I have to spank them, it's cause they didn't respond to another method of discipline, and that it hurts my feelings to have to do it. Again, for generations on generations, spanking families reared responsible kids with strong character. Some have been abusive and impotent in their punishment of kids that don't feel cared about. Some have been lax and raised worthless snots. And everywhere in between.
Certainly as a youth minister, I watched parents do a poor job of relating and communicating to their kids. Once I even had to step between a teenage girl and her evil stepfather. I think like an other tool for parenting, spanking as a good or bad idea is a matter of character, restraint and love. Love certainly has to be tough, and in life correction certainly has to be painful sometimes. So how it's done is as important to me than whether it's done.
I think my kids know that if I felt I have to spank them, it's cause they didn't respond to another method of discipline, and that it hurts my feelings to have to do it.
Bingo.
I trust you are not challenging my sincerity, nor actually comparing my methods for disciplining my children to arbitrarily punching people in the face. Since such behavior would be uncalled for and unproductive, I appear to have missed you point. Help.
Can anyone point to something in the book and say "this is likely to kill someone" ?
The continual beating of children until they submit?
You know what else this whole book reminds me of (just as a side issue) -- a BDSM instruction manual -- beat them until they like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, for generations on generations, spanking families reared responsible kids with strong character. Some have been abusive and impotent in their punishment of kids that don't feel cared about. Some have been lax and raised worthless snots. And everywhere in between.
There are plenty of other cultural practices that have been used for generations and generations, but we don't find them acceptable in our current culture.
We no longer exclude women from the political process.
We no longer allow slavery.
We don't allow cannibalism.
We no longer accuse people of witchcraft and kill them.
We don't blame women for being raped any more.
In the late 1800's, Mormons were the modern day equivalent of Al'Qaeda.
It's illegal to employ young children.
We've made it mandatory that employers take certain precautions for their employee's safety.
We no longer consider separate to be equal.
It used to be acceptable to challenge someone to a duel and kill them.
Just because our grandparents or great-great-great-grandparents did it, doesn't mean we can or should. The merits of something must stand on it's own. For me to accept the argument that CP should be allowed, two things would have to be met:
1: No CP either dramatically increases or guarantees behavioral problems.
This means that without CP, the number and severity of problems people had would increase. Children would be almost guaranteed to turn out worse and be worse adults. CP must provide some benefit that cannot be achieved without CP. Well adjusted adults must either be proven to never or rarely come from homes that did not use CP. If a well adjusted adult can be raised without CP a majority of the time, than CP is not a necessary tool for parenting.
2: Banning CP, and providing increased resources for parents to turn to, would not reduce the amount of child abuse happening.
By making it "not okay" to use CP and providing effective alternatives to parents, if child abuse wouldn't decrease (the potential negative effect of CP) than there is no point in a ban. If X% of parents will always abuse their children regardless of societal norms and pressure, than there isn't much need to enact preventative measures, all we can do is try to do is fix the situations that we identify as harmful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you did it to another adult and you could be arrested for it, what makes it OK to do it to a child?
Said another way, if it's rationally acceptable for me to beat a child with my belt because she won't obey me, then you should expect a little leather to your own ass the next time you make a poor decision. Don't worry, I promise not to use the buckle, and I won't leave any marks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to describe CP only in terms of the physical action itself, committed often with an object and against another person and against that other person's will or desire, and in such a way that the other person may not (and usually cannot) defend themselves, all on these Boards would decry it.
If I then added the dimension of violent physical action to induce some prescribed attitudinal adjustment; that the action's driving motivation is causing pain in order to effect behavior modification while leaving no long-term physical injury or other corporal manifestation of the action itself...well, most on these Boards might imagine I was describing torture of political dissidents in some foreign fascist prison, and universally, we would denounce it.
How is it even possible to expel all reason when I turn prisoner into child, and guard into parent and define the torture as CP?
This is like arguing flying spaghetti and teapots: of course, everyone agrees, it's ridiculous. Until teapot becomes Christ, then, those same ones say, I just don't know what I'm talking about; you have to have faith, see.
If you did it to another adult and you could be arrested for it, what makes it OK to do it to a child?
Said another way, if it's rationally acceptable for me to beat a child with my belt because she won't obey me, then you should expect a little leather to your own ass the next time you make a poor decision. Don't worry, I promise not to use the buckle, and I won't leave any marks.
Regarding the first part
...because as a parent, one has both a right and an obligation to make a kid's decisions for him and to formulate how a kid will respond in the future.
For instance, a parent can force a kid to stay indoors against his will (force him to stand in a corner) but doing so to an adult would at least be forceable restraint, an arrestable offense.
That is a case of doing something to one's child that one would arrested for doing to an adult.
So, the whole premise falls apart...
If you did it to another adult and you could be arrested for it, what makes it OK to do it to a child?
Said another way, if it's rationally acceptable for me to beat a child with my belt because she won't obey me, then you should expect a little leather to your own ass the next time you make a poor decision. Don't worry, I promise not to use the buckle, and I won't leave any marks.
Regarding the first part
...because as a parent, one has both a right and an obligation to make a kid's decisions for him and to formulate how a kid will respond in the future.
For instance, a parent can force a kid to stay indoors against his will (force him to stand in a corner) but doing so to an adult would at least be forceable restraint, an arrestable offense.
That is a case of doing something to one's child that one would arrested for doing to an adult.
So, the whole premise falls apart...
Incarceration is something we regularly use on adults, but there is a lengthy system in place to determine who it's used on and for how long. One could argue that parents are given the same authority, though the incarceration has certain limits on how and how often it can be used.
Parents do have obligations that require tools to raise their kids. I'm unconvinced CP is a required tool though, see the 2 points above in my post.
If you did it to another adult and you could be arrested for it, what makes it OK to do it to a child?
Said another way, if it's rationally acceptable for me to beat a child with my belt because she won't obey me, then you should expect a little leather to your own ass the next time you make a poor decision. Don't worry, I promise not to use the buckle, and I won't leave any marks.
Regarding the first part
...because as a parent, one has both a right and an obligation to make a kid's decisions for him and to formulate how a kid will respond in the future.
For instance, a parent can force a kid to stay indoors against his will (force him to stand in a corner) but doing so to an adult would at least be forceable restraint, an arrestable offense.
That is a case of doing something to one's child that one would arrested for doing to an adult.
So, the whole premise falls apart...
Incarceration is something we regularly use on adults, but there is a lengthy system in place to determine who it's used on and for how long. One could argue that parents are given the same authority, though the incarceration has certain limits on how and how often it can be used.
Parents do have obligations that require tools to raise their kids. I'm unconvinced CP is a required tool though, see the 2 points above in my post.
I don't see your two prerequisites as actually being prerequisites necessary for corporal punishment to be OK.
The obligation to make decisions for a kid does not give someone unlimited license to do to that kid whatever you want.
I did not state that it did. I did not imply that it did.
I don't see your two prerequisites as actually being prerequisites necessary for corporal punishment to be OK.
The inverse of my 2 points would be:
1: CP is ineffective
2: CP being acceptable increases the rates of child abuse
You think that using something that is ineffective and increases the rate of child abuse is okay? Or you think both points are wrong, and I challenge you to present an actual argument as to why.
I don't care about anecdotal evidence and honestly, there really aren't any well done studies that can conclusively show one way or another. I think my goalposts are valid though, though the issue isn't going to be decided right now or here. Do you have a better set of goalposts besides "my dad did it", "I turned out okay" or "because"?
I don't see your two prerequisites as actually being prerequisites necessary for corporal punishment to be OK.
The inverse of my 2 points would be:
1: CP is ineffective
2: CP being acceptable increases the rates of child abuseYou think that using something that is ineffective and increases the rate of child abuse is okay?
I think you are mistaking cause and effect.
1. I see no reason to see CP as being ineffective. It is an individual tool used by individuals. Making decisions based upon the population might be valid for government initiatives such as schools but does not apply to individual cases. It has been repeatedly effective for many people, myself included.
2. Defining "increases the rate of child abuse" is a difficult term. This appears to be basing the legitimacy of a tool applied in individual cases based upon whether or not others will use it in illegitimate cases and is doing so in one of the most important aspects for parents raising their children.
Personally, I don't think that a parent should be denied a legitimate tool in raising a child because others may use that tool illegitimately. This is especially so when using that tool illegitimately will still meet the criteria for being illegal. Such is the case with corporal punishment, IMO.
I do not see restricting responsible parents from using legitimate tools to raise their kids in order to prevent irresponsible parents from using that tool irresponsibly as being a proper way to restrict parents.
It looks to me like you're saying it grants the right to beat those kids. Since you do believe that there are limits to what a parent can do to a child (and surely physical assault must be one of those things parents can't do), I'm glad we're in agreement regarding CP (which is a form of physical assault).The obligation to make decisions for a kid does not give someone unlimited license to do to that kid whatever you want.I did not state that it did. I did not imply that it did.
Stop playing stupid with semantics. That has no place in a reasonable discussion.
You are putting out things as equivalences that are not.
Spanking a child is within allowance.
Beating within a half inch of someone's (including a child) life is not.
Unquestioningly, I would shift the cut-off point far from the latter.
The police are responsible for controlling adult behavior and that includes situations where they can go so far as to use billy clubs and tear gas. That is not physical assault in a legal sense but it is physically attacking someone and can be necessary.
A parent is responsible for controlling a child's behavior and influencing future behavior. Spanking (corporal punishment) in no way is comparable to beating with a billy club and is used in situations not nearly so severe. This difference in severity can most certainly be used to determine acceptability.
One adult spanking another (against his will) would be physical assault. So would punching an adult not trying to engage oneself in a fight. Police beating a compliant pulled over speeder with a billy club would be assault/police brutality. Giving a spiral fracture to a compliant (with being held) child would be assault/child abuse.
The point is that there are allowable reasons for putting one's hands on another and reasons that are not allowable. Lumping them all in together is nonsense.
Note: This is ignoring the fact that legally assault and battery are different things and that the above is assuming physical contact
In Indiana Assault and Battery is a single charge -- they are lumped together here.
Whether or not a form of discipline works on any given child depends on that child. Some children are more receptive to verbal reprimand, other are not. You have to play it by ear, each parent with each child. There is no blanket "Time outs always work, or spanking always works" it's not a black and white issue.
I've seen kids whose parents have gone over from spanking, and started serious physical abuse.
I've seen kids whose parents have gone over from verbal reprimands or time outs, and started locking them in closets or basements.
I've also seen parents who uses spanking and/or verbal reprimand bringing no harm to the child, and they turn out to be upstanding citizens.
It depends on the parent, and also the child. There is no one size fits all answer to this.
The advice given in this book is a treatise on "How to escalate from minor physical punishment to child neglect, mental and physical abuse with a clear conscience", and is possible the worst possible thing to pass off to any parent as a possible choice for discipline. The people who wrote that should be exposed as charlatans who have no business giving any advice to parents.
Just my 2 cp.
Statistically, when corporal punishment is applied as a primary means of punishment, it is not as effective at improving behavior as non-physical forms of punishment. Studies I have read found that young children were actually more likely to engage in further inappropriate behaviors in the hours after being spanked. It works poorly as a primary means of discipline.
On the other hand, the THREAT of corporal punishment works very efficiently for modifying children's behavior. Most find the prospect frightening, both because of any physical pain involved, and because it takes their parent (a figure of protection and comfort) and makes them instead a figure of menace.
That suggests that corporal punishment is best kept in the back of one's disciplinary arsenal, only to be used after the child refuses to comply with several lesser disciplinary steps. It just doesn't work well when used as a primary means of punishment.
(Each of my children was spanked once, after they had refused to comply with several lesser disciplinary measures. After that, they stopped refusing to comply with time-outs or other disciplinary measures.)
Statistically, when corporal punishment is applied as a primary means of punishment, it is not as effective at improving behavior as non-physical forms of punishment. Studies I have read found that young children were actually more likely to engage in further inappropriate behaviors in the hours after being spanked. It works poorly as a primary means of discipline.
On the other hand, the THREAT of corporal punishment works very efficiently for modifying children's behavior. Most find the prospect frightening, both because of any physical pain involved, and because it takes their parent (a figure of protection and comfort) and makes them instead a figure of menace.
That suggests that corporal punishment is best kept in the back of one's disciplinary arsenal, only to be used after the child refuses to comply with several lesser disciplinary steps. It just doesn't work well when used as a primary means of punishment.
(Each of my children was spanked once, after they had refused to comply with several lesser disciplinary measures. After that, they stopped refusing to comply with time-outs or other disciplinary measures.)
I think when most parents say they spank their children this is exaclty what they mean. That they are willing to and will, not that they do so for every minor behavior problem they encounter.
Isn't there a term for using the absurd end of a spectrum to make your point?
If you think that discipline is breaking a child to make them some kind of obedient zombie, I pity both you for your own horrible childhood, and your children.
If you're going to continue to equate spanking with some kind of intense torture session every time a kid steps out of line, then I think the chances of a real discussion on this topic are dismal at best.
The police are responsible for controlling adult behavior and that includes situations where they can go so far as to use billy clubs and tear gas. That is not physical assault in a legal sense but it is physically attacking someone and can be necessary.Billy clubs and tear gas are only allowed when a riot has turned violent. If you are restricting your comments to actions done in defense of the parent or others (eg. the child has pulled a knife on their sibling) then we're talking past each other.
Again, stop playing stupid.
I explicitly explained the reason you are arguing over but leaving out. Reread my post and stop playing stupid.
@ Darkwing Duck, why continue playing stupid and not try to debate in a manner other than to flame?
Case in point:
Earlier statement...
..because as a parent, one has both a right and an obligation to make a kid's decisions for him and to formulate how a kid will respond in the future.
Coupled with...
Spanking a child is within allowance.
and with...
One adult spanking another (against his will) would be physical assault.
One is referring to a parent working within one's obligation and legal capacity as a parent. The other is referring to an adult other than the police. The distinction is not arbitrarily referred to being OK if it is a child. There is explicit reasoning.
So when this is stated...
yet making the arbitrary distinction that if its a child, instead, who is the target, then its 'okay' as long as the assault isn't 'too severe'
It is overlooking the blatant distinction that is being made.
Spanking a child is within allowance.
Beating within a half inch of someone's (including a child) life is not.
as long as you are making these arbitrary distinctions, you are on unstable ground to be accusing others of playing semantics.
First, there is no arbitrary distinction between mere spanking and beating within an inch of one's life.
The difference is the basis for choosing allowable within a parents rights to raise a children. Within most locales, it is allowable.
Although one may say the cut-off line is a matter of opinion, (I explicitly stated I would place it far closer to the spanking...) that does not make it a matter of playing semantics. I should have said, I believe it is within a reasonable window of action.
The greatest gift you can give your child is love and patience.
I have never spanked my daughter, and I never intend to. Spanking is essentially lazy, and impatient. It teaches the child to be lazy, and impatient, and to respond to frustration in a manner that is raw emotionally, and overbearing physically.
On the other hand, taking the time to breath when your child acts out allows you to address the situation rationally. Talking to your child, showing your child basic respect, and allowing your child dignity breeds positive qualities. I've also found that it helps me, as a parent, to be a better person. Some folks enjoy living in a dysfunctional mess, and I feel a large part of that is based on self righteous pride, and emotional immaturity.
Is it really so hard for people to talk to their children instead of hitting them? In time I hope that hitting children will come to be seen as the barbaric practice that it is.
For those folks who say, "hey, my kid only responds to spankings," I say, "A) no wonder, that's how you've raised them, and B) your failure to develop better parenting skills does not mean that positive reinforcement doesn't work; it just means that you've failed to develop better parenting skills."
***
I believe in personal responsibility. Granted, I haven't read the link provided that this thread is about, but my moral compass tells me that the folks to blame are the parents who accepted the crazed advice.
I believe that people should be allowed to write whatever advice they want. Implying that the author of the book bears responsibility just implies to folks that they should be able to inherently trust the advice they purchase in a book; after all, the author is liable for bad advice, right?
But no. You as an individual are responsible for your actions. You as an individual are responsible for doing your homework, meaning that it is your duty to find out if the advice you're being presented with is credible. You alone should bear the responsibility of your actions.
***
Someone above mentioned "leading a horse to poisoned water" in argument against personal responsibility. Implying, of course, that the horse shouldn't be held responsible for drinking poisoned water.
I don't even remotely get the analogy. The horse (assuming the horse is an analogy for a human) is being murdered by the one leading it to poisoned water (assuming the one leading the horse knew the water was poisoned). If neither knew the water was poisoned then neither is to blame. It's what we call a tragedy.
It's not the same as saying, "hey, give me some money for my book, and I'll give you some advice that you can take or not take at your own discretion."
Sorry, DWD, but this playing stupid needs to stop.
About this:
"It was already agreed upon that this obligation does not grant the parent an unlimited license to do whatever they want. This comment does not, in any manner, inform us of what the limits on that license are."
The statement was clearly not meant to inform of the limit. The statement was EXPLICITLY stated to show that there was an EXPLICIT difference between the comparison you EXPLICITLY made between an action by one legally obliged to take actions (a parent disciplining a child) and one you was not acting in such a manner (an adult, not the police, physically assaulting another).
But, this is the worst...
I make statements about two things that are not the same...you take that out of context and compare them. I take the time to state the context they were each stated in to make that distinction and you take that explanation, ignore the context it was taken in, and compare it to something else that has nothing to do with what the first or second explanation regarded.
That is absurd.
Don't expect me to respond until this utter nonsense stops.
"The greatest gift you can ever give your child is love and patience."
What a beautiful sentiment. Really, it is. And while true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, really.
Let's look at this and how it's used as a counter-argument for spanking.
It assumes a few fallacious things:
1)Spanking = Lack of patience resulting you flying off the handle at every infraction of your guidelines for proper behavior you've set for your child; and
2)Spanking = Hatred for your child, or that you can only swat them on the behind if you're a truly calloused moron; and
3)Spanking can only be a full adult strength whallop with a hand or other fashioned instrument designed to inflict maximum pain with minimum evidence; and
4)Spanking is the first and last solution every time by any parent who says "Yeah, I spank my child".
This is absurd.
If one has the kind of temper and calloused indifference to children the above assumes, then by no means should they be allowed to keep their children, let alone spank them.
It's ok to disagree, but if you have to use a false premise to justify your position...
I think we're done here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I see no reason to see CP as being ineffective. It is an individual tool used by individuals. Making decisions based upon the population might be valid for government initiatives such as schools but does not apply to individual cases. It has been repeatedly effective for many people, myself included.
2. Defining "increases the rate of child abuse" is a difficult term. This appears to be basing the legitimacy of a tool applied in individual cases based upon whether or not others will use it in illegitimate cases and is doing so in one of the most important aspects for parents raising their children.
Okay, let me try to clear this up.
1: Show me evidence that a healthy and well-adjusted child cannot be raised without CP
2: Show me evidence that a higher prevalence of CP does not go hand in hand with higher rates of child abuse.
To expand:
1. If a healthy and well-adjusted child can be raised without CP, than you don't actually need CP. It may be a "legitimate tool" but it is then an unnecessary one. For me to accept it as a legitimate and necessary tool, it must be shown as a requirement to produce healthy and well-adjusted adults, not as an option, a requirement.
2: This is about the greater good. Hitting a child isn't even close to certain rights, like free speech, religion and voting. If a child can be raised without it, you will suffer no harm by it's removal. If CP were looked down upon by society, I believe we would see fewer of the negative consequences that are well established as resulting from severe CP and potentially less child abuse as well.
It used to be allowable to beat and rape your wife to get her to behave. There were limits and it was a common practice for hundreds of years. In 1736 Matthew Hale, the chief justice of England at the time wrote:
But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract
It wasn't until 1826 that England abolished domestic chastisement, but it had been acceptable on and off since the Roman empire. Today we've changed our attitudes.
You can't just say spanking is a valid tool, your parents did it and that's good enough. Show me evidence that children cannot be raised correctly without it. To me, there's no excuse to use violence (which spanking is still violence, even if it's mild) if there is even an equally effective method.
1. If a healthy and well-adjusted child can be raised without CP, than you don't actually need CP. It may be a "legitimate tool" but it is then an unnecessary one. For me to accept it as a legitimate and necessary tool, it must be shown as a requirement to produce healthy and well-adjusted adults, not as an option, a requirement.2: This is about the greater good. Hitting a child isn't even close to certain rights, like free speech, religion and voting. If a child can be raised without it, you will suffer no harm by it's removal. If CP were looked down upon by society, I believe we would see fewer of the negative consequences that are well established as resulting from severe CP and potentially less child abuse as well.
Just my 2cp
1. What percentage are you looking for here it might only be a requriment for part of the population your saying that unless its required for 100% of children its not legitimate.
2. Smoking is looked down upon by society and is even heavily taxed to help the greater good yet it hasn't declined much in even the last decade.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just my 2cp
1. What percentage are you looking for here it might only be a requriment for part of the population your saying that unless its required for 100% of children its not legitimate.
2. Smoking is looked down upon by society and is even heavily taxed to help the greater good yet it hasn't declined much in even the last decade.
No amount of physical force against another adult is legally permissible, except in self-defense. Most states consider even a 'playful' light slap on the butt as assault consummated with battery. There's simply no rational way to justify violent action against a child--adults are supposed to be their protectors.
I have three children; I've never spanked any of them. Sometimes it takes me a long time to get through to them, and a quick spanking would probably work faster.
Nonetheless, when my kids are seemingly incorrigible, we talk it out. They lose privileges when words don't work. Later we revisit the infraction and discuss the reinstatement of those lost privileges.
Ultimately, when my four year old wants to color, she remembers that coloring on the walls or furniture is not allowed. At four years old she may not understand why (after all, she sees it as making the wall more beautiful), but she understands that we don't do it, and if she does it anyway, she loses her crayons.
Losing the crayons is the last resort. First, we find other uses for the crayons, like coloring books and giant sheets of construction paper, which we then hang on the wall (to make it more beautiful). I can't tell you how many times we went through the whole process before she finally stopped coloring on the walls.
But I'm confident that when she looks at the wall or at her crayons, she doesn't cringe in fear, or feel suddenly angry, because she doesn't consciously or subconsciously associate the wall or the crayons with violence done against her person.
As to smoking:
From Mortality and Morbidity 2010:
"...cigarette smoking prevalence has been dropping steadily among Americans 18 and older since [the CDC] began keeping records in 1965, when 42.4% smoked. The proportion dropped below 30% for the first time in 1987, when 28.8% of Americans smoked.
"We think the proportion is dropping because of excise taxes that make cigarettes more expensive, smoke-free laws [that apply to most workplaces], and the availability of counseling and medications," McKenna says.
In 2007, the CDC says 22.3% of adult males and 17.4% of adult women smoked. It says 19.8% of African-Americans smoked in 2007, and 21.4% of whites.
The CDC says 443,000 deaths annually are attributed to tobacco use."
I have three children; I've never spanked any of them. Sometimes it takes me a long time to get through to them, and a quick spanking would probably work faster.
Nonetheless, when my kids are seemingly incorrigible, we talk it out. They lose privileges when words don't work. Later we revisit the infraction and discuss the reinstatement of those lost privileges.
Ultimately, when my four year old wants to color, she remembers that coloring on the walls or furniture is not allowed. At four years old she may not understand why (after all, she sees it as making the wall more beautiful), but she understands that we don't do it, and if she does it anyway, she loses her crayons.
Losing the crayons is the last resort. First, we find other uses for the crayons, like coloring books and giant sheets of construction paper, which we then hang on the wall (to make it more beautiful). I can't tell you how many times we went through the whole process before she finally stopped coloring on the walls.
But I'm confident that when she looks at the wall or at her crayons, she doesn't cringe in fear, or feel suddenly angry, because she doesn't consciously or subconsciously associate the wall or the crayons with violence done against her person.
I'm wondering, psychobabble aside, what you'd do if your daughter wandered out into traffic, or chased a ball into the street? I hope that this never happens, but there are things out there you don't get a second chance to correct your child on, or have the luxury of time for them to ponder stuff.
In more dire situations, how do you impress upon her the seriousness of things, immediately and urgently?
Yeah! Cuz that's like totally the same thing!
Beating children isn't a "one time and its done" solution. I would often repeat the same thing I'd been beat for. Often it was an act of defiance against the person who had beat me.
Don't remember advocating beating children, that's odd.
And also your personal anecdotes don't really count for much other than perhaps to serve as evidence that what works or helps one child won't for all.
And, didn't answer my question.