FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Babies Education





mshafiq
I wonder how can we teach our babies 'good habits'.

I have a two years baby boy 'Rayan' and he is so naughty.
Now I got a baby girl 'Sarah'.

I do not know 'how can we (me and my wife) manage to get enough time to teach them'.

Let us discuss some experiences that may help us. ....

-- Regards
Pepperfan
Babies are smart... they can see what works.. if you reward bad behavior they see that it works. IF you do not reward bad behavior but encourage them to get what they need by being good they will do that more than being bad. Of course some people are just bad... But even they will try something else if their bad behavior doesn't work

It is easy to give in to a crying baby because you don't want people around you to judge you. But it doesn't do the child any good.

Charles
torboxz
I agree with pepperfan. Reward is a good way to develop a good mental state for your kids. But don't be too generous. Your kids will start to ask for it each time the do a good deed, even the simplest one. Sometimes, a simple thank would be enough. Smile

Your kid Rayan is two years old and you said that he is very naughty. You must have been sparing the rod I assume. IMHO, it is normal for the first child and never too late to teach him how to behave accordingly. Just need more patient from you and your wife and a little spanking. And remember, do not yell as they will copy your behavior and yell back at you. Try to talk it out of every situation. Kids are smart, they'll understand (remember, it takes time and patient). Smile

For baby Sarah, you have the experience from your first kid, Rayan, right. You obviously know what went wrong and do not repeat the same mistake. Once bitten, twice shy, OK.

Good Luck.

PS: My little boy is 11months old. Very Happy
yagnyavalkya
infants begin learning the speech-sound categories of their language during the first 12 months of life.
word forms then become the foundation of the early vocabulary, support children learning of the language system
infant-directed speech (IDS) is the method of communication that is used with infants
in simple terms you don't talk with babies like you talk with adults
speaking to infants in the IDS speech style use sounds that more closely match infant production propensities as well as highlighting perceptually salient properties
In the recent years there has been tremendous advances in in recent years, infant psychology has described developmental sequences, learning situations, and social mechanisms that influence development
mshafiq
What a wonderful post from torboxz!!! -- Thanks

Can you believe (of course, by the way) once I said "Don't do it" in some kind of yelling way and he picked and use it and we laugh every time he copies it when he is angry...

Anyway you are alright they copy almost every behaviour.

And you know sometimes it worrisome too (when it is little feminine and boy picks that words/tone)..

-- Best Regards
deanhills
Worst thing is to tell a baby not to do something. Babies are the same as our subconscious. When they receive a negative instruction, they interpret it as positive. If you tell them not to write on the wall, they interpret it as that they must write on the wall. So probably positive statements work the best. Perhaps also with the minimum of fuss. The more fuss they receive, the more the tend to act out. There are of course also babies and babies, and some act totally different from others. Probably need to treat them on merit, like everyone else.
Bikerman
torboxz wrote:
I agree with pepperfan. Reward is a good way to develop a good mental state for your kids. But don't be too generous. Your kids will start to ask for it each time the do a good deed, even the simplest one. Sometimes, a simple thank would be enough. Smile

Your kid Rayan is two years old and you said that he is very naughty. You must have been sparing the rod I assume. IMHO, it is normal for the first child and never too late to teach him how to behave accordingly. Just need more patient from you and your wife and a little spanking.

Up until that point you made sense. Spanking is totally unnecessary and anyone who advises it as a 'discipline' is an ignorant fool. It is excusable in certain circumstances but never desirable.
Afaceinthematrix
^^ I don't think beating is a necessary punishment. I think it may be used as a form of punishment in a few extreme situations, but for the most part I do not think that it is necessary. I think the best form of punishment for anyone is embarrassment.

One example of this is from back when I was in high school (I think it's called secondary school elsewhere out of the states). One student acted up in class on a daily basis. Nothing the teacher could do (detention, extra homework, etc.) would control this guy. The teacher eventually called his mother, who came down to the school and during class, yelled at her son and made him apologize. After that, she set in class next to him for the rest of the class. The entire event was rather embarrassing for him. I think most people would be embarrassed if their parents yelled at them in front of the class and then set in class with them. The punishment did work. He never acted up in class again because he knew what his mother would do.

Another example would be Puritan societies. Hester Pryn from The Scarlet Letter (by Nathaniel Hawthorn (sp?)) was looked down upon for her illegitimate child. I'm sure that was embarrassing for her.

Basically, when it comes down to it, if a punishment was embarrassing (even if it's something silly like being forced to wear a sweater with pink unicorns or something like that) it would have a much greater affect on me (and I think probably most people) than simply pain.
Bikerman
The evidence is rather clear on this. Corporal punishment is NOT useful as a method of changing behaviour. It has an immediate effect, for sure, but it leads to long-lasting damage.
It is well known that there is a strong correlation between abusive behaviour in adults and their treatment as children. That is not to say that all children who are smacked will turn out to be abusive adults, but it does indicate that corporal punishment is not an effective tool. Speaking as a teacher I have no hesitation in saying that corporal punishment has no place in a civilised society.
I can totally understand the parent who administers a smack because they are scared that their child's behaviour might have resulted in harm. I attach no blame to such parents, but I do say that the smack is more for the parent's benefit than that of the child. Systematic corporal punishment (be it smacking, strapping or caning) is certainly something that should be condemned and I believe any parent who indulges in such behaviour should be punished by the courts.
Afaceinthematrix
I know that corporal punishment doesn't work. That's why I said that I would only use it in a few extreme situations. I think that if I had a ten-year-old son who hit/beat up his two-year-old sister, a beating may be justified. That's coming from an eye-for-an-eye point-of-view. I think that in that case, showing the kid what kind of pain he just caused his sister may be appropriate.
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I know that corporal punishment doesn't work. That's why I said that I would only use it in a few extreme situations. I think that if I had a ten-year-old son who hit/beat up his two-year-old sister, a beating may be justified. That's coming from an eye-for-an-eye point-of-view. I think that in that case, showing the kid what kind of pain he just caused his sister may be appropriate.
So, the lesson the child learns is that the strong can inflict pain on the weak. Not really a good way to change his behaviour.
An eye for an eye leads to everyone being blind.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The evidence is rather clear on this. Corporal punishment is NOT useful as a method of changing behaviour. It has an immediate effect, for sure, but it leads to long-lasting damage.


Agreed Chris. Although in certain cases where it is done with lots of self-control, without doing it in an abusive way, it could be the better form of punishment. I think children need to learn that they are responsible for their actions, and if they did something that is obviously wrong, that they need to be accountable for and expect punishment for it. In certain cases, corporal punishment is called for. Not all children are good subjects for corporal punishment though, some may be super sensitive and already be completely repentant and heart broken by the time their parents confront them, in fact just the mere confrontation can be super stress for them. Possibly a softer kind of punishment would be called for in their cases with lots of compassion. I agree with Afaceinthematrix that embarassing kids is an excellent discipline tool. I remember my dad used to tell my sister repeatedly not to bang her teaspoon inside the cup when she was stirring her tea at end of mealtimes. That became a ritual almost and of course an irritant to him, until one day he got up, went to the kitchen and brought her an egg beater. It had a huge affect on her, and is a lesson she remembers to the day! Obviously corporal punishment would be completely out of place here. But sometimes, especially in the cases of boys, they may have done something deliberately wrong, with total intent to do wrong, where corporal punishment would be the best kind of tool to use. But of course it needs to be given not out of anger, but out of need for discipline, with great care. In a way this kind of corporal punishment would be an embarassing experience as well.
Bikerman
Nope I still disagree.
Corporal punishment is NEVER the best technique to change behaviour. It is simply an admission of defeat and, more often than not, something which makes the parent feel better (temporarily). You change behaviour by making a person aware of the consequences of such behaviour, not by associating it with pain. Repressing behaviour by inflicting pain simply causes a conditioned response and the child does not internalise the real lesson (that such behaviour is bad because it causes damage to others). Such techniques are fine if you want to produce a compliant robot, but not fine if you want to produce an ethical human being.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I know that corporal punishment doesn't work. That's why I said that I would only use it in a few extreme situations. I think that if I had a ten-year-old son who hit/beat up his two-year-old sister, a beating may be justified. That's coming from an eye-for-an-eye point-of-view. I think that in that case, showing the kid what kind of pain he just caused his sister may be appropriate.
So, the lesson the child learns is that the strong can inflict pain on the weak. Not really a good way to change his behaviour.
An eye for an eye leads to everyone being blind.


Most of the time I agree that beatings are not a good punishment. But I do think that this case is different. If a ten-year-old boy hits his two-year-old sister, it may be that he does not understand the implications and pain that he caused her. Letting him understand that pain may open his eyes to what he really did to her and stop him from doing it again. I would only do this the first time, because if he hit her again, then there's obviously some deeper issues and something else needs to be done.
truespeed
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I know that corporal punishment doesn't work. That's why I said that I would only use it in a few extreme situations. I think that if I had a ten-year-old son who hit/beat up his two-year-old sister, a beating may be justified. That's coming from an eye-for-an-eye point-of-view. I think that in that case, showing the kid what kind of pain he just caused his sister may be appropriate.
So, the lesson the child learns is that the strong can inflict pain on the weak. Not really a good way to change his behaviour.
An eye for an eye leads to everyone being blind.


Most of the time I agree that beatings are not a good punishment. But I do think that this case is different. If a ten-year-old boy hits his two-year-old sister, it may be that he does not understand the implications and pain that he caused her. Letting him understand that pain may open his eyes to what he really did to her and stop him from doing it again. I would only do this the first time, because if he hit her again, then there's obviously some deeper issues and something else needs to be done.


I agree with bikerman,the ten year old hits the two year old because he is bigger,you hit the ten year old because you are bigger,how are you any different to the ten year old? Its also interesting that you would hit him first ask questions later.
Afaceinthematrix
^^I'd be different from the kid because I'm doing it to teach him a lesson. Besides, I wouldn't "hit first and ask questions later." If you read what I originally said, you'd see that I said, "a beating may be justified."
truespeed
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
^^I'd be different from the kid because I'm doing it to teach him a lesson. Besides, I wouldn't "hit first and ask questions later." If you read what I originally said, you'd see that I said, "a beating may be justified."


What if the 10 year old is teaching the two year old a lesson,maybe she hit the cat,is it then justified?

Hitting a kid, to teach a kid not to hit, seems like a contradictory punishment.
Afaceinthematrix
^^But then again, so do many things. If a police officer speeds up to catch someone and given them a ticket for speeding, then it's contradictory. Killing someone with the death penalty to teach them (well not really teach them - get rid of them) is contradictory*.

As I said from the beginning, I do not think beatings are a good punishment except for a few extreme situations. In this case, I said a beating may be justified. Maybe that kid hit his two-year-old sister while practicing some wrestling moves he saw on tv. Maybe he didn't realize how dangerous that was and that it actually hurt his little sister. Maybe he hasn't really learned the value of pain. A little beating (I wouldn't go overboard) may be appropriate there. I'd have to talk to the kid and see what his motives and reasons were.

*I, however, am firmly against the death penalty unless the death happened during the crime (ie. self-defense or something like that).
Bikerman
Well, I think you really need to consider what you are saying a bit more because I believe you are completely incorrect and, further, I believe it is inconsistent.
Afaceinthematrix
Well I don't believe that I'm incorrect. I also don't see the inconsistency.

Most of the time I believe beatings are not appropriate. As a matter of fact, I started off on my first post by saying this and then you responded to that by saying that they do not work (I assumed that you were referring to me because your post was right after mine). However, I did say that there are a few times where they are appropriate. I then gave an exception of when I do think it's okay. I do not see the inconsistency. In this example, I'm just saying that if a kid hits his little sister, talk to him... maybe it's that he doesn't understand the pain he caused her. Show him a little pain so that he'll understand not to do it to her again. Furthermore, I said that it's an appropriate first punishment. If he does it again, then there's obviously a bigger issue that needs to be dealt with. I'm bad with kids, so I'd probably just get him counseling/anger management at that point. Also, I said a little beating. I'm not going to unfasten my belt. He just needs a little lesson.

So to sum that up... I don't see my inconsistency. You may disagree, and that's okay. I don't have kids myself, but I'd like to think that I'd be a reasonable parent. 99.99% of the time, I wouldn't hit my kids. I just think that for a few things it can be justified. In my first post (which somehow led to this whole conversation, even though it's completely different) I summed up what I think the best form of punishment is. But I do want you to show me my inconsistencies - maybe I am logical screwed.
Bikerman
The inconsistency is apparent.
You inflict pain to teach that inflicting pain is wrong. Person B imposes pain on person C. Person A then inflicts pain on person B to teach them that inflicting pain on person C was wrong.
If inflicting pain is wrong then it is wrong whoever does it. If it is right for you to do it then why is it not right for the child to do it? After all, they might have had a perfectly reasonable justification in their own mind - perhaps they were pissed-off because their sister didn't understand how important it was to respect the authority of the commander of the Thrag forces when invading Zebulon Beta-minor....
Afaceinthematrix
But I'm not inflicting pain to show that pain is wrong. I'm inflicting pain to teach him what pain is.


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Maybe he didn't realize how dangerous that was and that it actually hurt his little sister. Maybe he hasn't really learned the value of pain.


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Show him a little pain so that he'll understand not to do it to her again


What I'm trying to infer (and what I explicitly stated), is that he may not realize, at a young age, what pain really is. Maybe he saw some some fighting on the television or a movie (while somewhere out of the house - I wouldn't let my children watch any of that) and thought it looked fun. Maybe he didn't realize what he just did to his little sister. Hey, let me show you how that feels. *ow* Now do you understand how dangerous that was? Will you do that again?

I don't think that's inconsistent. Nor do I think it's unreasonable, because I wouldn't pull of my belt to do this, it would be a little beating.
Bikerman
If you can't see why it is inconsistent then there is little point me continuing. I think it is completely obvious.
Afaceinthematrix
Ok... then don't continue. But I'm NOT using pain to teach that pain is wrong like you're implying - that would be inconsistent. I'm using pain to teach that pain can be dangerous and that care should be taken while inflicting it (like I've been saying). I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that you're coming from a completely different place that I'm coming from. You're using the argument similar to saying that the death penalty is wrong (which I'd agree with) because you're killing someone for killing someone. That would be like raping a rapist as punishment. But this is completely separate. I'm not trying to teach that pain, or inflicting pain, is wrong (because it is not always wrong - like in self-defense). I'm simply using a very mild dosage of pain to show that it can be dangerous and hopefully build up some respect for it. That would only work the first time, though. If he did it again, then other action must be taken.
truespeed
I am sure by the age of ten the boy knows what pain is,he's been to school,he will have hit and been hit,and he will know the consequences of both are pain. So you wouldn't be teaching him anything.

Alternatively you could sit him down and show him theres another way of solving disputes without resorting to hitting. Then you would be teaching him something.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
^^I'd be different from the kid because I'm doing it to teach him a lesson. Besides, I wouldn't "hit first and ask questions later." If you read what I originally said, you'd see that I said, "a beating may be justified."


What if the 10 year old is teaching the two year old a lesson,maybe she hit the cat,is it then justified?

Hitting a kid, to teach a kid not to hit, seems like a contradictory punishment.


Wow, just think about it a little! A 10-year old boy hitting a 2-year old girl!!!! A baby no less, think that would fall under the label of abuse. OK then, how would you deal with the situation Truespeed. What punishment would you use? I would be inclined to shoot the 10-year old boy!

Seriously though, in theory perhaps you have a good argument, but practice is another matter. And life is practice, not theory. A good hiding is very appropriate at times and in this case special treatment is necessary. Questions asked first of course, but cannot imagine there would be any reason in the book for hitting a 2-year old baby!
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Ok... then don't continue. But I'm NOT using pain to teach that pain is wrong like you're implying - that would be inconsistent. I'm using pain to teach that pain can be dangerous and that care should be taken while inflicting it (like I've been saying). I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that you're coming from a completely different place that I'm coming from. You're using the argument similar to saying that the death penalty is wrong (which I'd agree with) because you're killing someone for killing someone. That would be like raping a rapist as punishment. But this is completely separate. I'm not trying to teach that pain, or inflicting pain, is wrong (because it is not always wrong - like in self-defense). I'm simply using a very mild dosage of pain to show that it can be dangerous and hopefully build up some respect for it. That would only work the first time, though. If he did it again, then other action must be taken.


Taking this further (and I agree with your arguments Afaceinthematrix), what do you teach someone with the death penalty? What education is there in it? I.e. do we teach that this is what being killed feels like, or are we giving a life for a life? Or is it just simply punishment for doing something that is against the law?

I also do not believe that giving a child a hiding should perpetuate hidings or violence, provided that it is used with discretion and done right. The hiding is not only pain, but it is shame, punishment, consequences for really bad behaviour. Think a good parent would be able to explain it right after all the questions have been asked.
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Ok... then don't continue. But I'm NOT using pain to teach that pain is wrong like you're implying - that would be inconsistent. I'm using pain to teach that pain can be dangerous and that care should be taken while inflicting it (like I've been saying). I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that you're coming from a completely different place that I'm coming from. You're using the argument similar to saying that the death penalty is wrong (which I'd agree with) because you're killing someone for killing someone. That would be like raping a rapist as punishment. But this is completely separate. I'm not trying to teach that pain, or inflicting pain, is wrong (because it is not always wrong - like in self-defense). I'm simply using a very mild dosage of pain to show that it can be dangerous and hopefully build up some respect for it. That would only work the first time, though. If he did it again, then other action must be taken.

Your argument is completely inconsistent.
You started by saying you were using pain to teach what pain is. Now you say you are teaching that pain can be dangerous. Are you seriously saying that you believe there is a 10 year old boy out there who is not familiar with the concept of pain? I don't know any.
Then you say that you are using pain to teach that it can be dangerous and you need to be careful.
Are you seriously saying that it is OK to inflict pain if you are 'careful'? Is that really a lesson you wish to impart to a child? The implication is, of course, that if the child tortured his sister in a careful manner then this would be fine, as long as he inflicted pain on her in a dispassionate manner and didn't cause any lasting physical damage...
The whole argument is a nonsense.
You are not teaching the child anything about pain - you are simply inflicting it. Children do not 'spank' each other. They kick, punch, bite, scratch etc. Thus the 10 year old will have done something similar to his sister. Now, you are inflicting one type of physical punishment (a spanking) in order to 'teach him' that a completely different set of behaviour is harmful (unless, of course, you are saying that you would administer bite for bite, punch for punch, kick for kick). How does a spanking teach that pain can be dangerous? Are you suggesting that you spank the child sufficiently to be dangerous? Maybe you spank until you draw blood or cause lasting bruising? Now, of course I know you are not suggesting that - but that simply makes the whole line of argument invalid.

The point about self defence is bogus. The point of self-defence is not to inflict pain on another - that may be a consequence, but the aim is to defend yourself. That is in no way equivalent to the deliberate inflicting of pain on a relatively powerless person - there is NO occasion when that can be justified. It can be forgiven (for example the parent who 'instinctively' slaps a child on the bottom or legs because they have done something which could really have harmed them and this produces a 'shock' reaction in the parent), but it is not something which should be sanctioned, let alone encouraged.

Seriously - you need to reconsider this whole argument.

Finally, I suggest that if you ever have children you do not bring them to Europe. Spanking, smacking and other forms of child abuse are illegal in many European states (though not unfortunately, yet, in the UK).
truespeed
deanhills wrote:


Wow, just think about it a little! A 10-year old boy hitting a 2-year old girl!!!! A baby no less, think that would fall under the label of abuse.


And an adult hitting a ten year old isn't abuse? Whichever way you argue this, your point is contradictory,your saying its wrong for the ten year old to hit someone smaller,but you then repeat this "wrong" by hitting someone smaller.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:

Your argument is completely inconsistent.
You started by saying you were using pain to teach what pain is. Now you say you are teaching that pain can be dangerous. Are you seriously saying that you believe there is a 10 year old boy out there who is not familiar with the concept of pain? I don't know any.

Then change 10 to 6, or 4. While we're at it, change 2 years to 2 months. I was just picking random ages to use as an example.
Quote:

Then you say that you are using pain to teach that it can be dangerous and you need to be careful.
Are you seriously saying that it is OK to inflict pain if you are 'careful'? Is that really a lesson you wish to impart to a child? The implication is, of course, that if the child tortured his sister in a careful manner then this would be fine, as long as he inflicted pain on her in a dispassionate manner and didn't cause any lasting physical damage...

No I'm not saying that it's okay to inflict pain if you're careful. Carefulness cannot be used a justification. But if you're going to use pain in a justificatible manner (like in a few extreme situations), then care should be taken. That was my argument.
Quote:

The whole argument is a nonsense.
You are not teaching the child anything about pain - you are simply inflicting it. Children do not 'spank' each other. They kick, punch, bite, scratch etc. Thus the 10 year old will have done something similar to his sister. Now, you are inflicting one type of physical punishment (a spanking) in order to 'teach him' that a completely different set of behaviour is harmful (unless, of course, you are saying that you would administer bite for bite, punch for punch, kick for kick). How does a spanking teach that pain can be dangerous? Are you suggesting that you spank the child sufficiently to be dangerous? Maybe you spank until you draw blood or cause lasting bruising? Now, of course I know you are not suggesting that - but that simply makes the whole line of argument invalid.

Of course I'm not suggesting that. But that doesn't make the argument invalid. I spanked the kid once, it hurt him, he realizes that pain sucks. Look at how your sister felt? Do you think she enjoyed it? Will you put her through that again? That's all I was suggesting.
Quote:

The point about self defence is bogus. The point of self-defence is not to inflict pain on another - that may be a consequence, but the aim is to defend yourself. That is in no way equivalent to the deliberate inflicting of pain on a relatively powerless person - there is NO occasion when that can be justified. It can be forgiven (for example the parent who 'instinctively' slaps a child on the bottom or legs because they have done something which could really have harmed them and this produces a 'shock' reaction in the parent), but it is not something which should be sanctioned, let alone encouraged.

I didn't even make a point about self-defense. I was merely giving an example where inflicting pain is not wrong. That really has nothing to do with the argument - at all. I don't know how that earned a paragraph.
Quote:

Seriously - you need to reconsider this whole argument.

Of course I will. I always reconsider things. I'm open minded. But I do not think I'm wrong on this one. In a few extreme situations, spankings may be justified.
Quote:

Finally, I suggest that if you ever have children you do not bring them to Europe. Spanking, smacking and other forms of child abuse are illegal in many European states (though not unfortunately, yet, in the UK).

Well the chances of me ever hitting my kids (well I don't have any, nor do I want any) would be slim. I stated from the beginning that I felt overall it was wrong. I didn't even bring it up really (except in one sentence) until it was brought up. But if my kids did something extreme, I'd probably spank them once but I wouldn't go overboard. Any parent that leaves marks on their children has serious issues.
Bikerman
Err, you haven't actually given any reasoning for 'justifiable' pain at all. You give the example of beating a brother because the brother hurt his sister. When I try to get you to give a justification you go round in circles and say that IF it is justifiable then you should be careful. WHY is it justifiable? What does it achieve? What is the rationale?

Spanking/beating a child does not teach them that inflicting pain on others is wrong....rather the opposite. There is plenty of research available - go and google it.
mshafiq
Sub: A story - We were beaten and we respect Parent and ...

Let me share a story (in fact real talk) with you.
It was told by my colleague.

Here is the discussion between him and his wife.

"I told my wife that I was beaten when I was kid and it worked. So I'll do it too.

Moreover, I love my parents more, you see!

But what about you?

You told you were treated like flowers but you have disputes with your parents and you you (even) do not talk with them, you do not visit them....

Then what is the result of that kind of upbringing"


Anyway, I think best way is the middle way. 'Excess of anything is bad'

-- Regards
Bikerman
Err...that is pretty irrelevant.
Beating a child does not guarantee they will turn out to be abusive adults or loving adults, just like smoking does not guarantee you will die of lung cancer..
We work on probabilities and all the large scale studies that I have seen show correlations between corporal punishment and later problems in life.
Afaceinthematrix
That story was pretty irrelevent because all people are different. Different punishments are needed for different people. I get along with my parents pretty well and I was only spanked once as a child. After that, my father just used to fear (that I got from him threatening to beat me again) and that was good enough...


Bikerman wrote:
Err, you haven't actually given any reasoning for 'justifiable' pain at all. You give the example of beating a brother because the brother hurt his sister. When I try to get you to give a justification you go round in circles and say that IF it is justifiable then you should be careful. WHY is it justifiable? What does it achieve? What is the rationale?

It is justifiable because because:
1. It's not being done to the point of abuse
2. It's being done to teach a serious lesson
3. I would talk to the child to make them understand the serious implications of what they did - which would wrap up the lesson

Those three things together justify the situation.
Quote:

Spanking/beating a child does not teach them that inflicting pain on others is wrong....rather the opposite. There is plenty of research available - go and google it.


But it teaches them that having pain inflicted on yourself sucks... why would they want to inflict pain on someone else when they've experienced how much it sucks when it happened to them? That was my whole point - again.
truespeed
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
.. why would they want to inflict pain on someone else when they've experienced how much it sucks when it happened to them? That was my whole point - again.


So why would you want to inflict pain on someone else when you've experienced how much it sucks when it happened to you?
fx-trading-education
I agree that inflicting corporal punishment is never good and other solutions should always be prefered.
I would also say that if even if it is never a good solution it depends of the degree of "strength" of the punishment. Because here I read things about beating, but you can be much softer than that.
For instance, a tap on the hand is a kind of corporal punishment but it doesn't really inflict physical pain (I mean of course a small tap) and if the child cries it is more of disapointment than pain.

As a father myself, I wil not inflict physical pain to my child but when the child is clearly testing you, provocating you to see how far he can go without getting a too bad punishment, you need strong answers.
The best way we have found for the moment is to put the child in the "bad child" room until she apologizes or say she will be a good child from now on.
Fortunately we didn't have to face too bad behaviour outside of the house because this solution works only inside the house!

I can also understand that sometimes the child is getting so much on your nerves on purpose that you may react with a small physical punishment like a tap. I don't think it is very bad as long as it is very rare an that the child knows that it was really very extreme conditions and then that he got an extreme reaction and that anyway it was not really hurting him.
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
That story was pretty irrelevent because all people are different. Different punishments are needed for different people. I get along with my parents pretty well and I was only spanked once as a child. After that, my father just used to fear (that I got from him threatening to beat me again) and that was good enough...

It is justifiable because because:
1. It's not being done to the point of abuse
That is not a justification, that is possibly a mitigation if it came to trial - nothing more.
Quote:
2. It's being done to teach a serious lesson
No it isn't. As you said above, it is used to instil fear. You don't teach by beating, you condition. As I said before, if your aim is to produce operant conditioning in the child then beating has a role to play. If you are trying to produce a mature, reasoning, balanced, ethical person then it has no place.
Quote:
3. I would talk to the child to make them understand the serious implications of what they did - which would wrap up the lesson
How gracious of you. First beat the child then lecture them. Why bother - you have already instilled the fear? If your true objective was to instil a rational understanding in the child then beating them removes the possibility of doing so, so the chat is actually superfluous. Think back to the occasion your father beat you - do you remember the chat afterwards?
Quote:
Those three things together justify the situation.
No. They absolutely do not. You need to distinguish between a justification (in the sense of rationale or reason for doing something) and an excuse. What you have provided is excuses.
Quote:
But it teaches them that having pain inflicted on yourself sucks... why would they want to inflict pain on someone else when they've experienced how much it sucks when it happened to them? That was my whole point - again.
More inconsistency. The pain you are inflicting is of a particular type (a spanking for example). Why should a child associate that with their actions against the sister? Did they spank the sister? It doesn't make sense. Even if it did make sense, the clear lesson is that the powerful can administer pain to the weak, so long as they have some excuse - a very dangerous lesson.
As I said before most of the large scale studies on corporal punishment show the negative effects.
In the USA, the American Academy of Pediatrics (the lead body in this field) say
Quote:
The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults. Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.
Afaceinthematrix
Beat the child then lecture him? What? I thought I said specifically, multiple times, that I would lecture before and after. I'm not trying to instill fear. I said nothing about instilling fear. Well I actually I did. I said that my father had instilled fear upon me, but I said that as a response to that story that mshafiq said. That had nothing to do with this.

I still don't see the "more inconsistency." I don't think the pain is too different. No, the child didn't spank his sister - he hit her. I'd personally consider spanking and hitting to be the same category. They're very similar. The main difference is the location and intention of the hit.

As for that article, I don't think it has much to do with that. That study is referring to people getting spanked many times. It talks about the more someone gets spanked, the more likely they're to turn out bad. I already said, multiple times, that I would very rarely use spanking as a punishment. I would use it in extreme situations - the first time. If the child did the action again, then obviously other actions needs to be taken. I don't think getting spanked once as a child will have a dramatic effect on adulthood because if it happens once, and only once, wouldn't it instill the seriousness of the situation?
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I still don't see the "more inconsistency." I don't think the pain is too different. No, the child didn't spank his sister - he hit her. I'd personally consider spanking and hitting to be the same category. They're very similar. The main difference is the location and intention of the hit.
I hope you never get involved in a fight then. If they are in the same category then presumably you would have no problem punching the child? After all the intention is to.....err...actually I'm not sure what the intention actually is, since you still haven't made it clear. You sort of say the intention is to inflict pain so that the child knows what pain is - that is quite ridiculous of course. Then you say that it is meant to instil some sort of 'empathy' (my words) so that the child knows that inflicting pain is wrong - well that is clearly contradictory.
Quote:
As for that article, I don't think it has much to do with that. That study is referring to people getting spanked many times. It talks about the more someone gets spanked, the more likely they're to turn out bad. I already said, multiple times, that I would very rarely use spanking as a punishment. I would use it in extreme situations - the first time. If the child did the action again, then obviously other actions needs to be taken. I don't think getting spanked once as a child will have a dramatic effect on adulthood because if it happens once, and only once, wouldn't it instill the seriousness of the situation?
The article is completely and absolutely relevant. You use words like 'rarely' and 'extreme' as if they had some objective meaning. They don't. Rarely for one person might mean once in a lifetime. For another it might mean weekly or monthly. Extreme for one person might mean GBH, for another it might mean something completely different. Your example is not particularly extreme - siblings fight all the time - I did. You say that it would be a 'rare' occurrence - I think you are wrong. Brothers hit their sisters (and vica versa) quite often. Saying you would punish by beating on the first occasion is simply a continuation of the inconsistency of your whole argument.
Futile
First let me say that every child is different. What works to discipline one will fail miserably with next one. The fact is, until you try out the various ideas, along with a few of your own, you will not know what works with Rayan. But be prepared to change your tactics because your child will develop a resistance to particular methods of behavior modification. Time outs, quiet time, a stern “No” or removal of a favorite item should work with a two year old.

Bottom line is as a parent no one on earth knows him better your wife or you. You know what makes him happy or sad. You know which buttons pushed will result in anger or fear. You know what encourages and what crushes his little spirit. Unfortunately these little guys don’t come with user manuals. Believe me enjoy the terrible two’s, because when they turn into teenagers like mine are you wish your biggest problem was chasing after him for the TV remote.

My grandparents raised me so they were old school. So I would get spanked. Did I end up some demented, psychological, deep repress, angry adult? No. Every time I got spanked I got a lecture afterward explaining why I got spanked, and what I needed to do in the future to keep from getting put into that situation again. I was not beaten on everyday for the hell of it or for every little thing Spanking is deterrent, nothing more nothing less. To use it on a regular basis for every little thing would be abuse. It is a consequence for an action like any other punishment. Do I spank my children? Yes (but not any more they are either too old or too young) when they merit it, but my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.

Does this make me a bad parent, an abusive ogre, or a power monger? No. It makes me a parent. You may disagree with my methods and I will only justify them by saying that none of my teenagers are violating the city curfew, disrespecting other adults or teachers, doing community service because of getting in trouble with the police on some level. They are not angels by far, they are teenagers after all. They know that they can talk to me about anything and everything and they do. I know am a doing a good job because I constantly get praise from their friends and their friends’ parents. Do I have all the answers? No, no one does. When we as parents are faced with the same problem and we handle it differently, it doesn’t mean that one of us is a better parent than the other one. It just means that we are human.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
And an adult hitting a ten year old isn't abuse? Whichever way you argue this, your point is contradictory,your saying its wrong for the ten year old to hit someone smaller,but you then repeat this "wrong" by hitting someone smaller.


Nowhere has it been said in this thread that the adult must hit (or punch) the ten year old as punishment. That is obviously abuse. There is a difference between corporal punishment that is judiciously applied with self-discipline and self-restraint, and hitting or punching a child in anger.

Enjoyed the posting by Futile. Sets it out very well for me.
Bikerman
Futile wrote:
First let me say that every child is different

Look, nobody is saying that spanking your child makes you a monster. In fact I have gone out of my way to say the opposite.
The debate is whether it has any validity as a method of 'teaching'. Since this is a science forum then I expect this question to be addressed using at least a modicum of science. What you provide is anecdote. Of course not all children who are spanked will grow up to be bad people - that is both obvious and rather trite. Not all smokers will die from lung cancer either. Does that mean that smoking is a good idea?
You say that spanking is a deterrent. I challenge you to produce the evidence for that statement. In my experience, and the results of several surveys tend to support this, it is no deterrent at all.
Spanking operates as a short term 'operant conditioning' method. That is to say that is produces an effect rather like Pavlov did when he rung a bell before the dogs were fed. Pretty soon every time the bell is rung the dogs salivate. Is that the sort of conditioning you want for your kids?
You say that your kids preferred to be spanked. Does that not tell you something?
Spanking is the resort of the lazy parent and they justify it using all sorts of nonsense which does not stand up to proper scrutiny. You may wish to say that 'it did you no harm' but how can you demonstrate that? Can you say what you would have been like without it?
The simple fact is that large scale studies show a negative effect. It is therefore unlikely, but not impossible, that individual instances would produce a positive effect.
You say that the parent knows the child best. That maybe true but it doesn't mean that the parent knows much at all. Better than nothing is still a small amount.
truespeed
Futile wrote:
my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.


Doesn't this prove that spanking isn't a deterrent,if your kids prefer it over the alternative, then why do you need to do it at all,if the alternative doesn't involve hitting them and it is more effective,then go with the alternative.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
I hope you never get involved in a fight then. If they are in the same category then presumably you would have no problem punching the child? After all the intention is to.....err...actually I'm not sure what the intention actually is, since you still haven't made it clear. You sort of say the intention is to inflict pain so that the child knows what pain is - that is quite ridiculous of course. Then you say that it is meant to instil some sort of 'empathy' (my words) so that the child knows that inflicting pain is wrong - well that is clearly contradictory.


Just because something is in the same category doesn't mean they're the same. Physics and chemistry are both in the science category but they are difference in some ways. I said that they were in the same category, but that they were still different in some ways. I made the intention clear - to show what pain is. You just said, "...instill some sort of 'empathy' so that the child knows that inflicting pain is wrong..." completely wrong. I specifically said that I was instilling a sense that pain sucks, not that it's wrong. I even specifically said that pain is not always wrong.

P.S. No, I don't ever plan on getting in a fight. The last time I did get in a fist fight was back when I was 13 or 14 years old. I grew out of fist fighting after that. Now it just seems silly.

Bikerman wrote:
The article is completely and absolutely relevant. You use words like 'rarely' and 'extreme' as if they had some objective meaning. They don't. Rarely for one person might mean once in a lifetime. For another it might mean weekly or monthly. Extreme for one person might mean GBH, for another it might mean something completely different. Your example is not particularly extreme - siblings fight all the time - I did. You say that it would be a 'rare' occurrence - I think you are wrong. Brothers hit their sisters (and vica versa) quite often. Saying you would punish by beating on the first occasion is simply a continuation of the inconsistency of your whole argument.



Point taken... I should have defined "rarely" and "extreme."
Rarely - At most two or three times in a childhood in the most extreme situations
Extreme - Sometime that could directly danger someone's life (like hitting a two-year-old sister)

What does GBH mean?
truespeed
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

What does GBH mean?


Grievous bodily harm
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Just because something is in the same category doesn't mean they're the same. Physics and chemistry are both in the science category but they are difference in some ways. I said that they were in the same category, but that they were still different in some ways.
LOL - so would you teach someone chemistry to give them an understanding of physics? Seems an odd way to proceed.
Quote:
I made the intention clear - to show what pain is. You just said, "...instill some sort of 'empathy' so that the child knows that inflicting pain is wrong..." completely wrong. I specifically said that I was instilling a sense that pain sucks, not that it's wrong.
And I repeat that any child already knows that. From soon after birth every child is exposed to pain - be it skinning knees, burning fingers, falling on their ass. There is no mystery about pain and you certainly don't need to teach a child what pain is - they already know.
Quote:
I even specifically said that pain is not always wrong.
Yes you did and I asked you to provide an instance where the deliberate inflicting of pain was justified. So far you haven't - you mentioned self-defence which doesn't count because the object is not to inflict pain. The only behaviours which deliberately set out to cause pain, as the main objective, are corporal punishment and torture. Both are morally wrong, in my opinion, and both are practically suspect.
Futile
truespeed wrote:
Futile wrote:
my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.


Doesn't this prove that spanking isn't a deterrent,if your kids prefer it over the alternative, then why do you need to do it at all,if the alternative doesn't involve hitting them and it is more effective,then go with the alternative.

Futile wrote:
Do I spank my children? Yes (but not any more they are either too old or too young) when they merit it, my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.


Truespeed, I believe that you misunderstood my statement. So I will clarify it, as I stated, “not anymore”. What teenager wouldn’t prefer to get spanked? They are too “grown” and consider spanking too far beneath them. A spanking to a teenager as punishment is about the same as a career criminal being worried about a Class C misdemeanor. It is a deterrent and like all deterrents eventually it becomes non applicable to the situation.

Bikerman wrote:
You say that spanking is a deterrent. I challenge you to produce the evidence for that statement. In my experience, and the results of several surveys tend to support this, it is no deterrent at all.


Let me preface this by saying I am a business analyst and I deal with trend analysis, data sampling and surveys all day every day. Data can manipulated based on sampling groups, demographics, sample size and a number of other things in order to make the surveyor’s point valid. Surveys are a dime a dozen for every one that someone can produce, the opposing side can find one too. That being said here is a link to an article you may find interesting: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS07K02

Bikerman wrote:
You say that your kids preferred to be spanked. Does that not tell you something?


See reply above to truespeed

Bikerman wrote:
Spanking is the resort of the lazy parent and they justify it using all sorts of nonsense which does not stand up to proper scrutiny.


I may be a lot of different things but a lazy parent is not one of them. And I take offense to that comment. I have four step children and three of my own and five of these seven are teenagers. I have two jobs and have made every soccer game, football game, baseball game, basketball game, softball game, volleyball game, track meet, or school play except when I was out of town for work issues. "Proper scrutiny?” “What is proper scrutiny and who deems it?”

Bikerman wrote:
You may wish to say that 'it did you no harm' but how can you demonstrate that? Can you say what you would have been like without it?


Ok I will play your game how can you say'it did do me harm'

Bikerman wrote:
You say that the parent knows the child best. That maybe true but it doesn't mean that the parent knows much at all. Better than nothing is still a small amount.


In the original post the question was asked for experiences that could help. That is what I gave mshafiq. I gave him some suggestions of what he and his wife could try that may work for them. I also stated that what works for one parent and child may not work for another parent and child. I then stated from my experience and what worked for me with my children. To spank or not to spank is up to the individual parent and not the main reason for this thread. I have seen you avidly defend your position on not spanking or using corporal punishment and I commend you on that issue, but I have not seen you answer the original question about experiences. I too am a former teacher so I will present you with this thought. As a teacher I know that just by the way a child acts in your class you can usually tell the type of discipline that is used at home. You can tell whose parents are active and involved and whose are not. My point is this parenting is common sense. There is no map. Your heart and mind will tell you what is right or wrong for child and you. No one with any amount of letters and degrees behind their name with long reports in their hands are going to raise your child. It falls on you. As I stated earlier I am not going to sit here and try and justify my actions, but I will leave you with this. Right before Christmas break report cards came out. My second oldest was devastated because she got a B in a class. She was devastated to point of tears. When I asked her why she was crying she said because she should have gotten an A. I told her that a B was fine and that there was no need to get upset. She then looked me in the face and said that I taught her to always do her best and felt she hadn’t. And all my children have that drive and attitude. So, if what I have done so far is wrong then I don't want to be right. I don’t have all the answers but for me I believe the proof is in the pudding.
Bikerman
Futile wrote:
Let me preface this by saying I am a business analyst and I deal with trend analysis, data sampling and surveys all day every day. Data can manipulated based on sampling groups, demographics, sample size and a number of other things in order to make the surveyor’s point valid. Surveys are a dime a dozen for every one that someone can produce, the opposing side can find one too. That being said here is a link to an article you may find interesting: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS07K02
I am surprised that you provided that link, seeing that you are famliar, as you say, with analysis. It contains no analysis at all, merely unsupported opinion, such as
Quote:
Clearly there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use.
The evidence for this statement? None that I can find.
I am also highly sceptical about anything produced by the 'family research council'. It is a fairly extremist Christian lobby group promoting a very conservative 'pro-life and family' agenda. Their stance on other important social issues (such as contraception, homosexual relations, abortion, teaching 'Intelligent Design' in schools etc) means that I have very little time for that particular group and certainly do not think they offer anything 'scientific'.

I could easily provide a raft of contrary statements from many professional bodies involved in this area. Here are just two
UK Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health wrote:
We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour.
UNESCO wrote:
To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being.
And so on....
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Spanking is the resort of the lazy parent and they justify it using all sorts of nonsense which does not stand up to proper scrutiny.

I may be a lot of different things but a lazy parent is not one of them. And I take offense to that comment. I have four step children and three of my own and five of these seven are teenagers. I have two jobs and have made every soccer game, football game, baseball game, basketball game, softball game, volleyball game, track meet, or school play except when I was out of town for work issues. "Proper scrutiny?” “What is proper scrutiny and who deems it?”
Well I'm sorry if it offends you, but I stand by the comment. As I previously said I was not seeking to criticise you personally or imply that you were a bad parent - the point is a general one.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
You may wish to say that 'it did you no harm' but how can you demonstrate that? Can you say what you would have been like without it?


Ok I will play your game how can you say'it did do me harm'
I can't which is exactly the point. The argument that 'it did me/my children no harm' is entirely worthless and should be disregarded.
Quote:
In the original post the question was asked for experiences that could help. That is what I gave mshafiq. I gave him some suggestions of what he and his wife could try that may work for them. I also stated that what works for one parent and child may not work for another parent and child. I then stated from my experience and what worked for me with my children. To spank or not to spank is up to the individual parent and not the main reason for this thread. I have seen you avidly defend your position on not spanking or using corporal punishment and I commend you on that issue, but I have not seen you answer the original question about experiences.
My experiences are twofold. Firstly as a teacher and lecturer and secondly as a foster parent of some very disturbed children. I am not going to relate personal anecdotes for two reasons:
a) As I said above, they are pretty worthless in this sort of discussion
b) Whilst I am not particularly worried about my real identity becoming 'common knowledge' (in fact I take few steps to hide it since I try to post things which I am prepared to be judged by), I am not willing for the children I fostered to be identified since they have no say in the matter and it would be a gross abuse of trust.
Futile
Well I believe that we are at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree on the whole to spank or not to spank issue. And I should have explained myself better when I posted that article link. I don't agree with that site's overall views and opinions. It is exceptionally conservative. You are correct in that there is no "analytical data" and my intention was to reinforce my statement on the opposition producing sources whether "creditable" or not in the eyes of their opposition. And you stating that you could repeatedly retort the information to me just strengthens my point. I greatly respect and commend you on being a foster parent and it takes a special type in order to do it and would never expect you abuse the trust that is given you. My hat is off to you on that concern. I understand your situation, especially with foster children.
But I will pose you two more questions.

Bikerman wrote:
Spanking is totally unnecessary and anyone who advises it as a 'discipline' is an ignorant fool. It is excusable in certain circumstances but never desirable.


When is it excusable and in what circumstances? Just wondering.


First you stated:
Bikerman wrote:
The evidence is rather clear on this. Corporal punishment is NOT useful as a method of changing behavior. It has an immediate effect, for sure, but it leads to long-lasting damage.
It is well known that there is a strong correlation between abusive behavior in adults and their treatment as children.



Then you said:

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

You may wish to say that 'it did you no harm' but how can you demonstrate that? Can you say what you would have been like without it?



Ok I will play your game how can you say'it did do me harm'
I can't which is exactly the point. The argument that 'it did me/my children no harm' is entirely worthless and should be disregarded.


Not trying to be a smart a$$ just confused. Please explain.
Bikerman
Futile wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Spanking is totally unnecessary and anyone who advises it as a 'discipline' is an ignorant fool. It is excusable in certain circumstances but never desirable.


When is it excusable and in what circumstances? Just wondering.
Oh, in many circumstances. eg:
the child runs into the road and nearly gets knocked-down. The parent is shocked and slaps the child on the legs/bottom.
That sort of thing. I don't say it is justified, or a good idea, but I do understand it and I certainly would excuse it in similar circumstances (as I believe would any court - even where CP is illegal).
Quote:
First you stated:
Bikerman wrote:
The evidence is rather clear on this. Corporal punishment is NOT useful as a method of changing behavior. It has an immediate effect, for sure, but it leads to long-lasting damage.
It is well known that there is a strong correlation between abusive behavior in adults and their treatment as children.



Then you said:

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

You may wish to say that 'it did you no harm' but how can you demonstrate that? Can you say what you would have been like without it?



Ok I will play your game how can you say'it did do me harm'
I can't which is exactly the point. The argument that 'it did me/my children no harm' is entirely worthless and should be disregarded.


Not trying to be a smart a$$ just confused. Please explain.
The difference between the two is the first is based on several properly conducted studies with large sample groups. That is, I believe, the only scientific way to proceed. The second was a reference to personal anecdotes and stories which, I believe, are not worth serious consideration.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
LOL - so would you teach someone chemistry to give them an understanding of physics? Seems an odd way to proceed.


Of course not - don't be silly. I never once mentioned that. That was the result of your own imagination. Let's look at what I did say.


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I still don't see the "more inconsistency." I don't think the pain is too different. No, the child didn't spank his sister - he hit her. I'd personally consider spanking and hitting to be the same category. They're very similar. The main difference is the location and intention of the hit.


You then said:

Bikerman wrote:
I hope you never get involved in a fight then. If they are in the same category then presumably you would have no problem punching the child? After all the intention is to.....err...actually I'm not sure what the intention actually is, since you still haven't made it clear. You sort of say the intention is to inflict pain so that the child knows what pain is - that is quite ridiculous of course. Then you say that it is meant to instil some sort of 'empathy' (my words) so that the child knows that inflicting pain is wrong - well that is clearly contradictory.


You said that my argument was inconsistent for some reason that I still don't understand. If I hit my child to show that inflicting pain is wrong, then that would be inconsistent. But as I clearly and specifically said, I am NOT doing that. Period. I've already gone over multiple times that I'm not doing that.

It seems to me that you said that there's inconsistency because the kid hit is little sister; he did not spank her.

Bikerman wrote:
The pain you are inflicting is of a particular type (a spanking for example). Why should a child associate that with their actions against the sister? Did they spank the sister?


That is why I said that spanking and hitting are in the same category. Did I say they were the same? No! I actually said that they were different but placed in the same category, like physics and chemistry. You then say this:

Bikerman wrote:
LOL - so would you teach someone chemistry to give them an understanding of physics? Seems an odd way to proceed.


That was just silly. That had nothing to do with the argument. All you did there was twist around what I said to make it sound like I said something else. But then again... that's been the story of this debate. Again, I specifically said that they were DIFFERENT (just in the same category). That was a response to:


Bikerman wrote:
The pain you are inflicting is of a particular type (a spanking for example). Why should a child associate that with their actions against the sister? Did they spank the sister?


So are you telling me that you'd have more sympathy to someone who punched their kids lights out and then body slammed their kid as a consequence for punching and body slamming their sister than someone who just spanked their kids once? It seems to me that that's what you're saying. Now I'm sure you don't actually mean that. See? I can twist words around also. That makes the debate rather silly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bikerman wrote:
And I repeat that any child already knows that. From soon after birth every child is exposed to pain - be it skinning knees, burning fingers, falling on their ass. There is no mystery about pain and you certainly don't need to teach a child what pain is - they already know.


But I believe that there's a difference in just falling on your ass and getting hit. There's a huge psychological difference. Getting hit by someone (in other words, having someone inflict pain on you) is extremely different psychologically. I believe that most children would not want to hit someone again after they get a taste of it themselves. However, if the punishment doesn't work, then I would not try it again. I said multiple times that I would not make a habit out of beatings and if it doesn't work the first time, then other course of action needs to be taken.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bikerman wrote:
Yes you did and I asked you to provide an instance where the deliberate inflicting of pain was justified. So far you haven't - you mentioned self-defence which doesn't count because the object is not to inflict pain. The only behaviours which deliberately set out to cause pain, as the main objective, are corporal punishment and torture. Both are morally wrong, in my opinion, and both are practically suspect.


Hmmm... are you sure that I haven't provided an instance where the deliberate inflicting of pain was justify?

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

It is justifiable because because:
1. It's not being done to the point of abuse
2. It's being done to teach a serious lesson
3. I would talk to the child to make them understand the serious implications of what they did - which would wrap up the lesson

Those three things together justify the situation.



Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I know that corporal punishment doesn't work. That's why I said that I would only use it in a few extreme situations. I think that if I had a ten-year-old son who hit/beat up his two-year-old sister, a beating may be justified.


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
^^I'd be different from the kid because I'm doing it to teach him a lesson. Besides, I wouldn't "hit first and ask questions later." If you read what I originally said, you'd see that I said, "a beating may be justified."


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
As I said from the beginning, I do not think beatings are a good punishment except for a few extreme situations. In this case, I said a beating may be justified.


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I don't have kids myself, but I'd like to think that I'd be a reasonable parent. 99.99% of the time, I wouldn't hit my kids. I just think that for a few things it can be justified


That's the entire point of this argument. I believe that in this entire situation, mild spanking is justified. I kept pointing that out. So how am I failing to provide an instance?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the time I believe that corporal punishment is wrong. I do not condone it. However, I provided one situation from the beginning (well actually not the beginning, because in my original post I said that I do not believe it's the correct form of punishment, but I had one line saying that in a few extreme situations it is justified, and that's where this all started) where it is justified, in my opinion. I also said that it shouldn't just be done - I'd talk to the child before to try and understand why they did it - there may be a deeper meaning in it. You then jumped on me and said "beat now, talk later" which is actually the opposite of what I said. You then seemed to be deluding yourself by saying that spanking and hitting are not in the same category, and when I pointed out that they were, you suggested that I was implying that I should teach a physics class chemistry. That was putting words in my mouth (again) and using cheap tactics to come off better in a debate.

I understand that many people do not like corporal punishment at all. I'm okay with that. I'm not a huge fan of it either. I'm not drilling holes through a paddle like people did years ago. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that, in this hypothetical situation, I'm not beating the child simply because he hit his sister and that's the easy solution. That would be contradictory. That would be like murdering a murdering (which I am against the death penalty) or raping a rapist.
truespeed
Futile wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Futile wrote:
my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.


Doesn't this prove that spanking isn't a deterrent,if your kids prefer it over the alternative, then why do you need to do it at all,if the alternative doesn't involve hitting them and it is more effective,then go with the alternative.

Futile wrote:
Do I spank my children? Yes (but not any more they are either too old or too young) when they merit it, my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.


Truespeed, I believe that you misunderstood my statement. So I will clarify it, as I stated, “not anymore”. What teenager wouldn’t prefer to get spanked? They are too “grown” and consider spanking too far beneath them. A spanking to a teenager as punishment is about the same as a career criminal being worried about a Class C misdemeanor. It is a deterrent and like all deterrents eventually it becomes non applicable to the situation.



I wasn't commenting on the here and now,i was commenting on your overall attitude to coporal punishment,maybe i didn't make it clear. In the here and now you say your kids are either too old or too young,but the ones who are too young will soon be old enough. My comment was about you admitting you have an alternative method which you say is less preferable to your kids than spanking,so if you have a better method ,why spank your kids at all?

Out of curiosity,at what age do they stop being too young and at what age do they become too old?
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I still don't see the "more inconsistency." I don't think the pain is too different. No, the child didn't spank his sister - he hit her. I'd personally consider spanking and hitting to be the same category. They're very similar. The main difference is the location and intention of the hit.
Quote:
That is why I said that spanking and hitting are in the same category. Did I say they were the same? No! I actually said that they were different but placed in the same category, like physics and chemistry. You then say this:
You said they were very similar...which, I submit, to most fair minded people is not the same as saying they are different. The implication is one of sameness, not difference. Anyway - that may be a semantic quibble, so let's move on
Quote:
So are you telling me that you'd have more sympathy to someone who punched their kids lights out and then body slammed their kid as a consequence for punching and body slamming their sister than someone who just spanked their kids once? It seems to me that that's what you're saying. Now I'm sure you don't actually mean that. See? I can twist words around also. That makes the debate rather silly.
Nope - the point I made was entirely clear and cannot be twisted in that way. I have clearly said that I am opposed to ALL corporal punishment. My point was that there is a great deal of difference between a punch in the mouth when fighting and a 'mild spanking'.
Quote:
Hmmm... are you sure that I haven't provided an instance where the deliberate inflicting of pain was justified [sic]?
Absolutely certain. What you did was provide an opinion that it was justified, without reference to any evidence to support that opinion (ie excuse, not justification).
Quote:
You then seemed to be deluding yourself by saying that spanking and hitting are not in the same category, and when I pointed out that they were, you suggested that I was implying that I should teach a physics class chemistry. That was putting words in my mouth (again) and using cheap tactics to come off better in a debate.
Err it was nothing of the sort.
You gave the example of physics and chemistry being in the same category - just as spanking and 'hitting' are in the same category. Now, the clear, obvious and implicit assumption is that if you intend to teach what the pain of being hit is, by spanking, there is some map or analogy between that and teaching physics to teach chemistry. It was your analogy not mine....

Look - you are fairly good at maths, yes? Let's set it up as a formal analogy and see why it doesn't work.

You have 2 sets and each set contains 1 category and 2 subcategories.
Set 1 - Category = Pain. Subcat 1 = Spank. Subcat 2 = Punch
Set 2 - Category = Natural Science. Subcat 1 = Chemistry. Subcat 2 = Physics.

Now, it is your contention that if we deliver Subcat 1, that this teaches the Category of Subcat 2
In English - we deliver spank to teach the pain of punch - Yes?

Now, map the elements from set 2 onto that logic and what do you get?

This is clearly wrong. Obviously the best way to deliver chemistry is to deliver chemistry. That IMPLIES (remember this was your analogy) that the best way to teach about the pain of a punch is to deliver a punch. Now, of course neither of us would accept that, so the analogy is broken.
(If you want to 'categorise' spanking and punching the same, then obviously you have to define a mutual category. So, let's see - actions which cause pain? Yep, they are certainly both in that category. Not a very useful category though, is it? That category includes lots of actions which are genuinely beneficial to the child (swabbing a cut, removing a splinter, a visit to the dentist etc). How about actions INTENDED to cause pain? Much more tricky. Do we know that the child intended to inflict pain on his sister? If he did then the clear implication is that he planned to punch his sister and he knew that it was going to hurt. That is, of course, possible but it is equally possible that he lost his rag, with no thought for consequences...)

Now, you say that
Quote:
I believe that most children would not want to hit someone again after they get a taste of it themselves.
But they are NOT getting a taste of it themselves. You are, you say, giving a mild spanking. Do you seriously think the 10 year old will draw an equivalence between a punch in the mouth and a mild spanking? I don't - in fact I'm pretty damn sure they wont. The only common factor is pain. If the child knew he was inflicting pain with the punch then he knows what pain is already. The very language you use 'get a taste of it themselves' implies quite strongly that the punishment would be more effective if it matched the offence (ie punch for punch). Now, of course, I do not support that notion - but neither do I support the notion of spank for punch..

Nor does the evidence support the general notion - any teacher can tell you that in the days of corporal punishment there would be a core of pupils who were strapped/caned repeatedly and a majority of pupils who were never caned/strapped (I was one of the former).
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
in the days of corporal punishment there would be a core of pupils who were strapped/caned repeatedly and a majority of pupils who were never caned/strapped (I was one of the former).


I am just old enough to remember the corporal punishment in schools,and even though i was a good kid in school, i was still on the end of a leather strap across the hands a few times. And like you say there were a number of kids who would be getting strapped almost weekly.

Were there benefits for the teacher,well yeah it was a quick fix punishment solution. Were there any lessons learned by the kid? Well no,as the same kids would be in the headmasters office every week for another dose of corporal punishment. This should prove that it doesn't work.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
I am just old enough to remember the corporal punishment in schools,and even though i was a good kid in school, i was still on the end of a leather strap across the hands a few times. And like you say there were a number of kids who would be getting strapped almost weekly.

Were there benefits for the teacher,well yeah it was a quick fix punishment solution. Were there any lessons learned by the kid? Well no,as the same kids would be in the headmasters office every week for another dose of corporal punishment. This should prove that it doesn't work.


This is probably a different level than babies. I remember something of that too. Ours was a little more entertaining though. The strap was used to wake us up in the morning. The teacher used to start with those sleepy ones in the back corner of the class and ask the first question, give them a few seconds, and then they had to hold their hand out for a strap. Sometimes that would progress a few desks before an answer came from someone who finally managed to grab their wits together, but not in a shocked way, rather, entertaining way. The strap sort of got us focussed and concentrating on the subject matter to the extent after a while it was no longer to use in that session. Complete different level though, and we were also entertained to some interesting quotes and original sayings by that teacher, that we recall with lots of laughter to this day. He helped us to laugh at ourselves, and not to take ourselves too seriously, nor the strapping either. I remember he would be absent from class, and we would be rowdy and take the place apart. He would return by making a solemn appearance. Ask who was responsible for the noise. If someone put their hand up, they would get a strap and it would end there. If no one did, all of us got the strap.

Think the one benefit of it was that he really woke us up and made us concentrate. Humour tends to do that to a person. Think that is one of the most useful tools in education, some light relief helping people to learn faster Smile
Futile
truespeed wrote:
Futile wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Futile wrote:
my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.


Doesn't this prove that spanking isn't a deterrent,if your kids prefer it over the alternative, then why do you need to do it at all,if the alternative doesn't involve hitting them and it is more effective,then go with the alternative.

Futile wrote:
Do I spank my children? Yes (but not any more they are either too old or too young) when they merit it, my kids actually prefer to be spanked instead of my normal discipline. Being a veteran I tend to lean toward a more military approach for my teenagers. A little 10 to 15 minute “IT session” coupled with a week or two removals of certain privileges depending on the severity of the offense is enough of a deterrent to insure that they behave.


Truespeed, I believe that you misunderstood my statement. So I will clarify it, as I stated, “not anymore”. What teenager wouldn’t prefer to get spanked? They are too “grown” and consider spanking too far beneath them. A spanking to a teenager as punishment is about the same as a career criminal being worried about a Class C misdemeanor. It is a deterrent and like all deterrents eventually it becomes non applicable to the situation.



I wasn't commenting on the here and now,i was commenting on your overall attitude to coporal punishment,maybe i didn't make it clear. In the here and now you say your kids are either too old or too young,but the ones who are too young will soon be old enough. My comment was about you admitting you have an alternative method which you say is less preferable to your kids than spanking,so if you have a better method ,why spank your kids at all?

Out of curiosity,at what age do they stop being too young and at what age do they become too old?


True, there is no hard line age where you can say well at 10 you are too old. As I have a stated several times, every child is different. My oldest birth daughter is 13 and she is just like me when I was her age, opinionated, stubborn, knows everything. As I stated spanking is beneath her and a joke, due to the fact it is for little kids and babies and her sheer force of will power and self pride will keep her from letting a spanking faze her. But just 2 short years ago a spanking would have fazed her. As I stated earlier they grow, they adapt. Suddenly what worked last week doesn’t work now. As far as when too young is, I feel it is simple and this IMO is where you separate corporal punishment from child abuse and good parenting from what Bikerman deems as lazy parenting.. The child needs to be able to fully comprehend why he is being punished. A parent who spanks a young child and knowingly knows that the child does not understand is abusive in my eyes because the child does not realize that it is a consequence for an action not a behavior, (see Bikerman’s salivating dog comment). A real life example for me my youngest birth daughter is now 6. She got her first spanking when she was 4 due to the fact she moved her step stool from the bathroom to kitchen in order to get her soup off the stove, which of course is boiling and piping hot and would have severely scalded her. I have never had to spank her again. It is a deterrent with her. Her own self pride and drive won’t allow her to intentionally step out of the boundaries that she knows is in place. IMO, as a parent it is your job to know what your child can handle both mentally and physically. Here in Texas, Child Protective Services says that a child may be left alone at home unsupervised it they meet or can preform the following critieria:

• the age, emotional maturity and capability of the child;
• layout and safety of the home, play area, or other setting;
• neighborhood circumstances, hazards, and risks;
• the child's ability to respond to illness, fire, weather, or other types of emergencies; and
• whether the child has a mental, physical, or medical disability.

There was a case about 5 years back where a mother left her 5 year old at home to watch her 3 year old. Well, while the loving mother was out an electrical fire started. The 5 year old called 911, gave his name and address, and mom’s cell number and got his little brother up and out of the house. CPS needless to say took the children and filed charges of neglect and abandonment against the mother. Well the mother got off on all charges and got her kids back because her lawyer made the case that her 5 year old was able to meet all of the above criteria and had demonstrated such. I would have thrown her under the jail myself but I guess that is why I am not a judge. My point with this story is to say that as far as how young is too young that depends on the child with emotional maturity and capability being the key factors.
deanhills
Futile wrote:
There was a case about 5 years back where a mother left her 5 year old at home to watch her 3 year old. Well, while the loving mother was out an electrical fire started. The 5 year old called 911, gave his name and address, and mom’s cell number and got his little brother up and out of the house. CPS needless to say took the children and filed charges of neglect and abandonment against the mother. Well the mother got off on all charges and got her kids back because her lawyer made the case that her 5 year old was able to meet all of the above criteria and had demonstrated such. I would have thrown her under the jail myself but I guess that is why I am not a judge. My point with this story is to say that as far as how young is too young that depends on the child with emotional maturity and capability being the key factors.


Amazing story! What a resourceful little guy that was, and probably the mother should receive some credit for coaching him so well. Kids at that age are pretty awesome. Can just imagine the faces of the 911 guys when they discovered the children! 5 year old looking after a 3 year old. Guess he should be able to get the vote too? Smile
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
You said they were very similar...which, I submit, to most fair minded people is not the same as saying they are different. The implication is one of sameness, not difference. Anyway - that may be a semantic quibble, so let's move on

Okay... I'll just move on also because that's probably just a little semantic argument that's pointless...


Quote:
Nope - the point I made was entirely clear and cannot be twisted in that way. I have clearly said that I am opposed to ALL corporal punishment. My point was that there is a great deal of difference between a punch in the mouth when fighting and a 'mild spanking'.


Of course your point cannot be twisted that way. I was making my own point. I was purposely twisting your point in a way to where I was implying that you meant something that you clearly did not mean because I felt that you did the same to me. I was simply categorizing punching and spanking similarly and then you jumped on me asking if I would teach chemistry by lecturing on physics. That was clearly not my point and I felt that you probably new that that wasn't my point. That's why I twisted your words that way. I knew (and I'm sure everyone else knew) that you did not mean that; it was clearly a product of my wild and eccentric interpretation.

Quote:
Absolutely certain. What you did was provide an opinion that it was justified, without reference to any evidence to support that opinion (ie excuse, not justification)


All you asked me to do was to point out an instance where it is justified. I'm sure that I could find people with testimonies on how being beat as a child helped them out in a long run, then I could video tape them, and put it up on youtube.com. But that would be way too much work considering I don't even have kids, nor am I planning on having any kids (and if I do, it will be in many years). But I guess I can tell you that I hit my sister once, as a child, and my father beat me once. That was the only time I ever hit my sister; it was also the only time that I was ever spanked as a child. So basically I took this example from my own life because it was an easy example to come up with.


However.... I do not think that providing any of this testimonial evidence will have any difference on your opinion of the situation. I say that because you have the evidence of studies done by professionals. Therefore, you asked me to provide an instance where spanking was justified and I just provided an instance where I felt that it was justified. Now the problem I feel with these surveys is that all people are different. I said from the beginning that overall, I feel that spanking is wrong but there are some times where it was justified. The reason that I feel that it is sometimes justified is because it works on some people. That's why, from the beginning, I kept using the phrase "...a beating may be justified." If a group studies 10,000 people and finds that in 9,900 cases, beating did not work, then most people will assume that beating is wrong.

I disagree with that. I think that all the study is saying that in 9,900 times out of 10,000, or basically 99% of the time, beating is wrong. If it works on 1% of the population, then why not use it on 1% of the population? From the beginning I kept saying that a beating may be justified in some situations. I also said that I would talk with my child before it happened. I wouldn't just lash out and beat his ass. That would be wrong. I also said that I wouldn't spank my children often. If I spank them once and it doesn't work, they commit the same act of misbehavior again, then I wouldn't do it again. If it works then I have a child that fits 1% of the population (of course I do not know the exact statistics, 1% is merely an example).

Did I ever say that beating is always the solution? Did I ever say it was a universal punishment? Did I ever even say that I think it is a good thing? Did I ever say that it's the best form of punishment for everyone? The answer to all of those rhetorical questions is "no."

So to sum up what I just said: all people are different. I also think it's foolish to treat people as if they were the same. If beatings are ineffective (or even counterproductive) on 99% of the population, then don't use them on 99% if the population. If they work great as a punishment on 1% of the population, then use them for that 1%. You have to give punishments that work to your kids. If you try and punish your son by telling him he can't play with barbie dolls, it probably (well for most boys) have the same effect as if you tell that to your daughter. Give punishments that work for the individual.

Quote:
Err it was nothing of the sort.
You gave the example of physics and chemistry being in the same category - just as spanking and 'hitting' are in the same category. Now, the clear, obvious and implicit assumption is that if you intend to teach what the pain of being hit is, by spanking, there is some map or analogy between that and teaching physics to teach chemistry. It was your analogy not mine....


Actually.... that was your analogy. I categorized spanking and hitting the same. I put them in the same category. When you responded with them (by implying that I said they were the same), all I did was say (these probably aren't the exact words; I'm too lazy to go and get the exact words), "No. They're not the same. They're just in the same category (like how physics and chemistry are both in the same category of science)." You brought up the whole teaching deal.

Quote:
Look - you are fairly good at maths, yes? Let's set it up as a formal analogy and see why it doesn't work.


Yes... I am. I'm interested to see where this is going to go.
Quote:

You have 2 sets and each set contains 1 category and 2 subcategories.
Set 1 - Category = Pain. Subcat 1 = Spank. Subcat 2 = Punch
Set 2 - Category = Natural Science. Subcat 1 = Chemistry. Subcat 2 = Physics.

Now, it is your contention that if we deliver Subcat 1, that this teaches the Category of Subcat 2
In English - we deliver spank to teach the pain of punch - Yes?

Yes.
Quote:
Now, map the elements from set 2 onto that logic and what do you get?

Well obviously you're getting chemistry to teach physics, but... (I'll take care of this in the next section)

Quote:
This is clearly wrong. Obviously the best way to deliver chemistry is to deliver chemistry. That IMPLIES (remember this was your analogy) that the best way to teach about the pain of a punch is to deliver a punch. Now, of course neither of us would accept that, so the analogy is broken.
(If you want to 'categorise' spanking and punching the same, then obviously you have to define a mutual category. So, let's see - actions which cause pain? Yep, they are certainly both in that category. Not a very useful category though, is it? That category includes lots of actions which are genuinely beneficial to the child (swabbing a cut, removing a splinter, a visit to the dentist etc). How about actions INTENDED to cause pain? Much more tricky. Do we know that the child intended to inflict pain on his sister? If he did then the clear implication is that he planned to punch his sister and he knew that it was going to hurt. That is, of course, possible but it is equally possible that he lost his rag, with no thought for consequences...)

Now, you say that
Quote:
I believe that most children would not want to hit someone again after they get a taste of it themselves.
But they are NOT getting a taste of it themselves. You are, you say, giving a mild spanking. Do you seriously think the 10 year old will draw an equivalence between a punch in the mouth and a mild spanking? I don't - in fact I'm pretty damn sure they wont. The only common factor is pain. If the child knew he was inflicting pain with the punch then he knows what pain is already. The very language you use 'get a taste of it themselves' implies quite strongly that the punishment would be more effective if it matched the offence (ie punch for punch). Now, of course, I do not support that notion - but neither do I support the notion of spank for punch..

Nor does the evidence support the general notion - any teacher can tell you that in the days of corporal punishment there would be a core of pupils who were strapped/caned repeatedly and a majority of pupils who were never caned/strapped (I was one of the former).


All of that is still ignoring the psychological effect of getting beat* that I explained. Physics and chemistry are completely different subjects and classes (well some concepts, like the periodic table, are taught in both, but that's beside the point). Getting hit, however, is completely different. Getting hit has (on some people... and these people are probably the people that should be hit in this situation) a psychological effect. Damn! He actually willingly inflicted pain on me? For any "tough-guy-attitude" kid, that would definitely be an ego killer. And that lesson (psychological lesson), is universal between the two. Therefore, your sets don't do much (well they do show your point (which I don't agree with), because until I looked at your set, I completely missed your point about teaching chemistry to teach physics). If I wanted to teach about the periodic table, I could give the person a text book on either physics or chemistry, because that concept is universal between the two. That's what my point is.


*I keep switching the words "beat" and "spank." I'm sorry... just habit. I'm using them interchangeably, though. I mean the same thing.

P.S. I'm sorry that my response was not prompt. I usually try to respond promptly when debating, but I was not on this weekend.
deanhills
Whilst reading the main debate between Afaceinthematrix and Chris, the thought occurred that perhaps words could also be a spanking in their own right, perhaps a worse spanking than a physical one?

So what would be worse? To use very harsh words in a "spanking" way, or to spank someone in a self-disciplined way, whilst explaining what it is all about? For example a parent could shout abuse, yet not touch the child physically, but perhaps have a worse affect on the child? Or a parent could be cold, distant and aloof, and make a singular sarcastic remark in a totally disassociated way and that could also have a worse affect than spanking in a self-disciplined way.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Whilst reading the main debate between Afaceinthematrix and Chris, the thought occurred that perhaps words could also be a spanking in their own right, perhaps a worse spanking than a physical one?

So what would be worse? To use very harsh words in a "spanking" way, or to spank someone in a self-disciplined way, whilst explaining what it is all about? For example a parent could shout abuse, yet not touch the child physically, but perhaps have a worse affect on the child? Or a parent could be cold, distant and aloof, and make a singular sarcastic remark in a totally disassociated way and that could also have a worse affect than spanking in a self-disciplined way.


That depends. Different punishments work differently on different people. I think that words can be far more painful psychologically. HOWEVER... you must be very careful. Words can be far worse than physical pain... far worse.

Imagine telling a child that he's/she's a worthless piece of s*** that's good for absolutely nothing. Furthermore, that he/she should go and do the world some good and kill themselves.

If that child didn't end up committing suicide, there would probably minimally be some psychological effects and probably therapy. Words, in that case, would be far worse.

However... some people are different. From my experience, criticism seems to bounce off of highly arrogant people. Maybe that's true for all/most arrogant people or just many that I've met. I do not know. The point is, I've met many people who would just scoff at any yelling, or at the very most, act like it's affecting them and then laugh it off later.

As I said in my previous post, different punishments work for different people. I'd say that many times words are more effective and are a better alternative. You should, however, exercise caution and not say something really bad in the heat of the moment when you are pissed off. If I had children, I would probably just temporarily strip them of privileges and put them on "time out" while I cool off; then, and only then, would I proceed to talk to them. I have been known to say things that I later regret when losing my temper. Doing something rash (like telling your child that he/she is a worthless little piece of good-for-nothing s***t, that you don't love them, and that they should kill themselves is one of the biggest parenting crimes that you'd possibly be able to make. Of course that's just an extreme example that I would hope would never happen (although something to that sort has probably, unfortunately, happened before)).
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Doing something rash (like telling your child that he/she is a worthless little piece of good-for-nothing s***t, that you don't love them, and that they should kill themselves is one of the biggest parenting crimes that you'd possibly be able to make. Of course that's just an extreme example that I would hope would never happen (although something to that sort has probably, unfortunately, happened before)).


Agreed. That is almost worse than physical abuse. There was something else I was thinking about today as well. Some people really love drama. I am sure you must have seen adults, and also children, spoiling for a fight. Going a few degrees deeper, people who are prone to depression, who have a poor self image, put themselves down, and even though they appear hurt, seem to be OK with it when people put them down as well. Everyone is so different from the other person and how to discipline people like that must be one of the toughest things to figure out. Glad I am not a teacher, wow!
imera
This post has gone from how to teach young children good behaviour to a debate about inflicting corporal punishment, which is bad in some cases but could work in others.

I was born in east Europe where beating was okay, then we moved to a country where it was not allowed, but I still remember being beaten a few times. What I also remember is being hugged later on and apologized and told that what I did was really wrong and I shouldn’t do it again. Well, most times I learned. I wasn’t beaten often, and I do love my parents still. But beating should never be used for small things.

I have now a brother that turned two years a few days ago. He is spoiled since he has four sisters where I’m the oldest (21) and the youngest is 13, so he is kind of spoiled. I’m pregnant and will live at home one year after I give birth, so it will be fun to see how he reacts to the new baby.

There are some things that work with my brother.
• Sometimes shouting, usually as he is doing something really stupid likes liberally throwing his food or drink.
• And if he would not let a thing be after we have told him to wait like ten times I would at least smack his fingers, not hard just so he would listen to me.
• His father uses to shout loudly that he has to be quiet after he would cry (actually whining) about something, then he becomes quiet and hulks but stops it not even one minute later, he mostly forgets why he started to cry.
• And making him sit on his chair without allowing him to get off works really well; he tries to make us tell him to come and sit with us but we mostly deny him since it won’t help if one tells him to sit there and then another one comes and takes him away.

There is one thing that is a little funny with my brother. If I hit him (not hard) he laughs and plays with me, if someone else hit him he starts crying and is hurt. He doesn’t take me serious but he listens to me, while if someone else is serious with him he obeys.
natilovesmike
I have a 2 and 1/2 year old myself and I am wondering the same questions you are wondering. I am also a positive dog trainer...which means I know a lot of techniques to teach someone who doesn't quite get our language yet. And even though a dog and a kid are not the same....I know they are not...some of the basic concepts I use apply to all species...including your mother in law! Smile

Anyway, When I was pregnant with my son I went to the birthing classes and the one thing I remember learning that I think has been helpful is that when you baby is very young (newborn to 6 months) the only means of telling you something if you are not paying attention is ... yes cry and scream. But if you DO pay attention they have little behaviors like opening and closing their mouth or putting their fingers in their mouth that mean they are hungry. Now if you wait for them to start crying, then they will learn that crying is what gets them what they won't ...and from day one you will be teaching your baby to cry for things. For some reason this was very important for me, I didn't want to train my baby to cry for everything, besides crying is stressful and maes the baby anxiuos and scared.

So when my baby was born I would react to the smallest of cues and wake up in the middle of the night to feed him before he started crying...just based on his stirring and mouthing cues. I think this helped in the long run. My son is pretty well behaved and, yes he cries, and screams and has tantrums but I think they are less often that what I hear in other parents.

That would be my advice from the start...but if you want to do something now when you son is a little older there's still time...plenty.

I think the basic concept is the same though...you have to _catch him_ doing the _correct_ thing and praise the hell out of him! Usually we pay attention to our kids when we hear them scream or cry because it's very obvious...and any attention is praise for them...but when they are playing quietly with their toys we just let them alone...which is wrong...we should go and praise them while they do that. IT's hard, because when they are finally playing alone and give you a little time to yourself that's when you have to go and play with them.

When my son does somthing "bad" I usually put him in time out...which to be honest I don't think it works very well unless you are VERY consisent. A quick thing I do is to turn around and close my arms...as to not pay attention to him and he gets that message very clearly...and stops doing whatever he was doing that I thought it was "bad". Instantly when he stops I turn back around and continue playing with him and praise him if he is doing good.

That's my grain of sand in this.
mshafiq
Sub: Why is my Toddler a Picky Eater? -- An Article/Website

Besides the continued discussion, I thought to share an article what I found at

http://www.parentingmytoddler.com/why-is-my-toddler-a-picky-eater

Let me insert a little excerpt from there.

"If you have a toddler that is a picky eater, you have probably searched high and low to find advice, tips, and tricks on how to get your child to eat to your satisfaction. We went through this same exercise many times looking for answers with our son. What we found was that there is quite a bit of information and advice out there on how to get a picky eater to eat. However, information on the reasons why toddlers or babies are picky eaters was scarce. This article will focus on reasons why children are picky eaters in an effort to help understand why some tricks work and some do not. If we have an understanding of the underlying cause, we are better able to find our own solutions. First, you are not alone. If your child is a picky eater, he is the norm, not the exception. The general consensus is that most toddlers are very picky eaters. The majority of toddlers will either eat a few bites and then want nothing to do with the food, or decide that they will only eat one food for a prolonged period of time. Now let’s look at the underlying causes of picky eating. Toddlers Don’t Want to Sit Still Toddlers are always on the go......................................."

-- Regards
mshafiq
There is a question if it is alright to let the babies learn from through CDs/DVDs being played in DVD player and doing our work ...

Will the true learning happen?

Isn't it selfishness to spare time by making the babies to sit in front of TV and doing your own work and thinking that he/she is anyway learning something?

You Opinion please?
programitv
Try to talk to your child about the consequences of doing something, but give him the impression: 'HE has the choice of doing it or not". Example: 'You can tell:"If you would touch the plug, you may go to the hospital, you will be sick for several days, etc. " and than, "Would you still want to touch the plug?". If he insists he still wants to do it, ask him why and try to challenge... "that his mother would suffer a lot if he goes to the hospital, .. that this other child which did it, look what happened to him and how painful it was.. etc."

This will make your child ask "the consequences" and "the why" before doing something stupid next time, and will help him in the future decide with his own head. Try as well to speak with images, concrete examples, persons in their sorrounds they like or dislike. It will ease their way of understanding. Good luck.
mshafiq
In spite of how to teach a kid

Now a days I observed my son (three years and 7 months old) is following me too much.
On one hand it is a good opportunity to teach him what ever I want to
but on the other hand I am too busy too and now a days suffering from depression.

I wonder 'how can I keep balance to take rest and spend some quality time with my son while I spend about 10 hours for work + travelling.

Pray for me that God should give me strength to fulfill all reqiurements properly.
Thanks!
sithlord
IMO i think it is alright to "spank" your child WITHIN REASON. Iv seen the lack o respect kids have for thier teachers now since they know that the teachers cant do anything but "write them up". I wish they would bring this kind of stuff to the US.
Bikerman
I think you are dead wrong.
I had little respect for my teachers and getting regularly thrashed with the tawse did nothing to increase it.
I am also a teacher and corporal punishment is not, IMHO, much to do with any lack of respect. The reasons for that are the reasons why politicians and other 'leaders' are not given the respect they got in past years - they basically don't deserve it.
Any teacher who cannot get the class working without threats of physical abuse, is probably in the wrong job. Sure, there are school at which I really wouldn't want to work. The problems normally stem from poor management, and putting a new head into the school will often bring about a transformation.
lucian0127
torboxz wrote:
I agree with pepperfan. Reward is a good way to develop a good mental state for your kids. But don't be too generous. Your kids will start to ask for it each time the do a good deed, even the simplest one. Sometimes, a simple thank would be enough. Smile

Your kid Rayan is two years old and you said that he is very naughty. You must have been sparing the rod I assume. IMHO, it is normal for the first child and never too late to teach him how to behave accordingly. Just need more patient from you and your wife and a little spanking. And remember, do not yell as they will copy your behavior and yell back at you. Try to talk it out of every situation. Kids are smart, they'll understand (remember, it takes time and patient). Smile

For baby Sarah, you have the experience from your first kid, Rayan, right. You obviously know what went wrong and do not repeat the same mistake. Once bitten, twice shy, OK.

Good Luck.

PS: My little boy is 11months old. Very Happy


Likewise ahaha
lucian0127
natilovesmike wrote:
I have a 2 and 1/2 year old myself and I am wondering the same questions you are wondering. I am also a positive dog trainer...which means I know a lot of techniques to teach someone who doesn't quite get our language yet. And even though a dog and a kid are not the same....I know they are not...some of the basic concepts I use apply to all species...including your mother in law! Smile

Anyway, When I was pregnant with my son I went to the birthing classes and the one thing I remember learning that I think has been helpful is that when you baby is very young (newborn to 6 months) the only means of telling you something if you are not paying attention is ... yes cry and scream. But if you DO pay attention they have little behaviors like opening and closing their mouth or putting their fingers in their mouth that mean they are hungry. Now if you wait for them to start crying, then they will learn that crying is what gets them what they won't ...and from day one you will be teaching your baby to cry for things. For some reason this was very important for me, I didn't want to train my baby to cry for everything, besides crying is stressful and maes the baby anxiuos and scared.

So when my baby was born I would react to the smallest of cues and wake up in the middle of the night to feed him before he started crying...just based on his stirring and mouthing cues. I think this helped in the long run. My son is pretty well behaved and, yes he cries, and screams and has tantrums but I think they are less often that what I hear in other parents.

That would be my advice from the start...but if you want to do something now when you son is a little older there's still time...plenty.

I think the basic concept is the same though...you have to _catch him_ doing the _correct_ thing and praise the hell out of him! Usually we pay attention to our kids when we hear them scream or cry because it's very obvious...and any attention is praise for them...but when they are playing quietly with their toys we just let them alone...which is wrong...we should go and praise them while they do that. IT's hard, because when they are finally playing alone and give you a little time to yourself that's when you have to go and play with them.

When my son does somthing "bad" I usually put him in time out...which to be honest I don't think it works very well unless you are VERY consisent. A quick thing I do is to turn around and close my arms...as to not pay attention to him and he gets that message very clearly...and stops doing whatever he was doing that I thought it was "bad". Instantly when he stops I turn back around and continue playing with him and praise him if he is doing good.

That's my grain of sand in this.


Yup, praise them when they do something good, and scold them when they do something bad. In that way, they will know if they do something bad or good... and they will learn a lot of good manners right?
adrianagg58
I agree! Very Happy
mshafiq
I agree with the techniques.
But how much they are effective it depends on the babies/children too.
If your experiences are good you will always it is because of your good training.
But I would appreciate if someone could jump into discussion whose experience is not very good.
I know about that kind of issue/matter my Boss. His sone is ... let us say 'out of control'. Anything if he does good with parents is taken as bonus and they do not have any expectation from him.
He (my Boss) is intelligent and he (and I agree 100%) teaching/techniques are good for some extent but if a child is born with special (say stuborn/obsitane) nature it can not be cured completely.
That is why sometimes we see one/some child/children very different from other brothers and sisters.
It is probably easy to say/deliver lecture when you have something ...
So I would like to hear from some one who has some different story.

Thanks!
eday2010
mshafiq wrote:
I wonder how can we teach our babies 'good habits'.

I have a two years baby boy 'Rayan' and he is so naughty.
Now I got a baby girl 'Sarah'.

I do not know 'how can we (me and my wife) manage to get enough time to teach them'.

Let us discuss some experiences that may help us. ....

-- Regards


Don't forget that kids are born with their personalities. Some kids will turn out to be jerks when they are older no matter what you do as you raise them. They just have that in them. You can lessen their jerkiness with how you raise them, but some kids are inherently disobidient regardless of what you do to try to get them to be better behaved.
mshafiq
eday2010 is right.

Now let me discuss something different.

I was living in Montreal. We do not know how to speak French. When We tried to send Rayan to day care, it was harder for him to adjust. There were two reasons for this matter.

1. We already had less opportunities to mingle with other kids/families.
2. He did not know French

So he be started to show some kind of autism.

When I had to go to back-home (as my Father paralyzed), I moved with my family.
Over there, he got company of loving cousins and the people who love and care
and ... now ... thanks God, he is fine.

So we cam guess what kind of issues rise with immigrants or with the people who do not have relatives and/or families where they can visit/discuss....
Related topics
Money for education or war.
Babies for sale on eBay tentacle
Want to know if LOVE is real?
What do you think about breastfeeding ?
The rotting flesh that is our political system
is German MUST for working or education
What are the taboos in your culture?
Whats your views on alcohol?
Simpsons better known than First Ammendment
What do babies talk?
Teachers on Strike
Music for babies
Talk about your children...
Education Forum
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Education

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.