Do You Believe In Smacking Children ?

[Willie Boy]

Spanking is assault to cause injury; inflicting pain on the small, weak and defenceless is a prerequisite. A spanking isn't a spanking without infliction of pain.

Hitting a child is a barbaric and cowardly act by the morally bankrupt.

It can be if used incorrectly. Often times spanking is used as "you've done bad and now MUST be punished". In this it is used to extract some measure of vengeance from the victim. This is wrong. The correct way to use spanking is "I've tried every other method to get you're attention so I can discipline you, but you just wont heed", so a tap or two is administered on the bottom, not to cause pain but to draw attention. It is best administered with broad sweeping gestures but light impact. Once you have the child's attention then you can discipline him/her. The type and level of discipline should match the type and level of infraction.

 

[Keeland]

The correct way to use spanking is "I've tried every other method to get you're attention so I can discipline you, but you just wont heed", so a tap or two is administered on the bottom, not to cause pain but to draw attention.

Spanking
noun [ in sing. ]
an act of slapping, especially on the buttocks as a punishment for children: you deserve a good spanking.
spank |spaNGk|
verb [ with obj. ]
slap with one's open hand or a flat object, especially on the buttocks as a punishment: she was spanked for spilling ink on the carpet.
noun
a slap with one's open hand, especially on the buttocks.

A "tap" on a child's buttock's would draw attention to nothing. Quit pretending a spanking exists for anything except the administration of pain to a defenceless child that you hit only because you know the child can't hit back.

Until he can, at which point you'd deserve everything you get. Especially if hitting back involves a loaded gun.

 

[mikey3000]

With all due respect, it is not assault when trying to correct a child's behaviour. Here is the*law:

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0510-e.htm

No deaths would have occurred if it were not for "punishment" that included the infliction of pain on the young, small, weak and defenceless.

If anyone did to you or any other adult that which you advocate doing to a small, weak and defenceless child, it would be assault, possibly whatever your local equivalent charge is of assault with a deadly weapon, or assault with a weapon, or assault with intent to cause injury at the very least.

Spanking is assault to cause injury; inflicting pain on the small, weak and defenceless is a prerequisite. A spanking isn't a spanking without infliction of pain.

Hitting a child is a barbaric and cowardly act by the morally bankrupt.

 

[peeonme]

It can be if used incorrectly. Often times spanking is used as "you've done bad and now MUST be punished". In this it is used to extract some measure of vengeance from the victim. This is wrong. The correct way to use spanking is "I've tried every other method to get you're attention so I can discipline you, but you just wont heed", so a tap or two is administered on the bottom, not to cause pain but to draw attention. It is best administered with broad sweeping gestures but light impact. Once you have the child's attention then you can discipline him/her. The type and level of discipline should match the type and level of infraction.

I at one time went to a fundamentalist church, they were big on corporal punishment for children and forgiveness for adults.
Does that seem kind of strange? Forgive those who knew better and punish the innocent.

 

[Keeland]

With all due respect, it is not assault when trying to correct a child's behaviour. Here is the*law:

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0510-e.htm

The law is an ass and always will be an ass.

If the final recourse is to parrot the law, we'd still be cutting off limbs — as is normal in many countries, so as you argue it must be right — or hanging a starving child for stealing a loaf of bread.

If the law prohibited the purposeful infliction of pain on a person because that person cannot fight back or even run from such cruelty, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[theworldwithout]

I don't see much wrong with it. Just as long as its a bop on the bottom, which is what my parents did whenever my siblings or me acted like obnoxious, little shits. Anything worse than that then yes, I think its too much.

 

[Willie Boy]

I at one time went to a fundamentalist church, they were big on corporal punishment for children and forgiveness for adults.
Does that seem kind of strange? Forgive those who knew better and punish the innocent.

That comes from churches being run by people who can't understand the "intent of the law" as far as scripture is concerned. They instead follow the "letter of the law" as they interpret it. They read individual phrases out of verses like "Spare the rod and spoil the child" and take it as the end-all, be-all as far as rules for dealing with children. They forget the passage in Ephesians (It starts in Chapter 6, verse 4) "Fathers do not provoke your children to anger...." Children do need discipline, but they never need abuse. Punishment can go either way.

 

[rareboy]

I at one time went to a fundamentalist church, they were big on corporal punishment for children and forgiveness for adults.
Does that seem kind of strange? Forgive those who knew better and punish the innocent.

Pretty much.

It is the rank hypocrisy of it that is so vile.

But I'm not a big fan of corporal punishment at any age.

Or for animals either.

 

[NotHardUp1]

That's a bit selective branding.

Fundamentalists are also known for being socially conservative, which includes slowness to accept changes in the roles of women, a bent toward authoritarianism, as well as a strong stance on criminal penalties.

Whereas there is much emphasis on forgiveness of personal transgressions, in reality the congregations have been known for backing anti-gay legislation, for backing "three strikes" drug sentencing, and for treating divorced couples as pariahs.

On the other hand, corporal punishment and parenting isn't equated with crime, but with shaping behavior and creating a disciplined child.

It's also easy to sneer at Fundamentalists as some sort of throwbacks when actually they are little more than the end of the train. Catholics, "main line" Protestants, and the rest of the society all held pretty much the same socially conservative views, with few exceptions, in the last 30-100 years and before. And that is to say nothing of nations and societies that have progressed at much slower rates than the West.

This is little more than the forward edge of the left looking back with its normal contempt for the rest of the pack not keeping up.

Hypocrisy isn't the preserve of the Fundamentalists. The same people shrieking about food-born illnesses may be the ones rimming at night, and the ones castigating religious charity are often doing little or nothing on their own to help the poor.

 

[peeonme]

I tried to teach my son the concept of grace as he was growing up. If he acted up I would explain to him why his behavior was not proper, I taught him to turn away from that behavior (repent) and ask forgiveness (apologize) then we went on as though it had never happened.
What was good for me was good for him.