So you're saying that because it's not used as it was intended, it somehow makes the definition null and void. Someone ought to notify the makers of aluminum foil.

And you're getting these "vast, vast majority" statistics from...where?

Exactamundo. I'd be fine with punishment being dealt with at home...if it actually happened, but often it doesn't.

And yes, there is a distinction between a spanking and a beating. I've had both, and even as a child I could understand the distinction between the two. My father, thankfully, had enough sense to attend classes to control his anger. His father would swing out of anger, and so did he. After the classes, I was hardly hit at all, and never in a knee-jerk response to him being angry over something I'd done. When I was hit for something, I knew well in advance what I'd done wrong, why it was wrong, and that I was being punished for the wrong and only given what had been deemed the proper punishment--no more, no less.

Those are the intended results of punishment, but the punishment itself is pain (or discomfort, if you prefer) in one form or another.

Any child learns to avoid detection to avoid punishment, no matter what the punishment is...that's not strictly a matter of corporal punishment. I also had groundings as a regular sentence for offenses. It's not like I didn't try to avoid being caught at doing something wrong just because I was going to be shut in my room for it rather than get hit.

No, absolutely not. However, to turn your own logic around on you: Just because it's true that one child struck turned out bad, it must be true of every child? I turned out the way I did, not because of the type of punishment used, but becuase my parents were actually concerned about my well-being and that I be brought up to be a good person. Punishments came as object lessons, not as angry responses against my behavior. For a predominantly conservative family with traditional values, they were also extremely liberal in their parenting methods at times. Basically, they were pragmatists; they tried different approaches, and stayed with the ones that worked.

To draw a meaningful lesson here, you're going to have to try and define pain or discomfort, which, let me tell you right now, you're going to have a hard time doing.

The point of a punishment is to accomplish those three things. You use pain if you think pain is the most effective way of accomplishing those goals. As it so happens, it's not.

I remember going to far greater lengths to avoid physical punishment than others. Certainly, to my knowledge, no one has ever fled their parents' house over a grounding. Pro-spanking advocates like to try and paint this romantic, idyllic notion of children being remorseful after a spanking and feeling that they've learned a lesson or whatever, but my experience is that most people have absolutely no fucking memories of what being a child is and was like. I never felt any of those things, never felt loved or protected from such a punishment. I only felt terror, anger, and resentment, before and afterwards. And I wasn't struck that hard, it didn't fall under the definition of abuse that most spanking advocates would use. I was never bruised. It was simply traumatizing because my parents were physically striking me. It's simply not the same thing as being grounded or having a privilege taken away.

I could forgive this attitude if we were still in an era when a household without corporal punishment was almost unheard of. However, we have plenty of evidence that other approaches do work. Plenty of parents now raise their children without using physical force as a punishment, and their children generally turn out much better than the average.

Does every child who is spanked turn out to be a monster or a felon? Of course not. I think I turned out fine, ultimately. But every child who trips and breaks their nose doesn't turn out bad either, and I don't think parents and teachers ought to advocate breaking noses. To be frank, spanking is horrific, or should be, to all parties involved, and there's no evidence that it accomplishes any lasting good. It's more effective in the short term, but ultimately less effective at instilling good behavior, because it relies upon vigilance and brute force, things that will be lost. And the nature of it doesn't encourage children drawing deep moral lessons from it, they're just terrified of being hurt again.

If you made aluminum foil out of tungsten, that would change the definition. You are the only person I have ever met that has claimed that spankings don't, or shouldn't, hurt the children suffering them. I think you have a little bit to prove in saying this was somehow the intention of the practice (against all historical evidence), or even that anyone else agrees with you.

But then it wouldn't aluminum foil, now would it?

spank1 /spæŋk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spangk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–verb (used with object) 1. to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment.
–noun 2. a blow given in spanking; a smart or resounding slap.


beat /bit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[beet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, beat, beat·en or beat, beat·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object) 1. to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly


I don't know about your reading comprehension, but the language is very different in those two definitions.

Fear is a good way to raise a child.

The irony is how not different those two actually are, and how you fail to see that.

It's possible to meet the definition for A here without meeting that for B, but that's clearly not going to be the norm. Again: how many parents do you know that spank their kids without intending or expecting to cause pain?

How many do you know that do? You're arguing that there is no difference between a beating and a spanking. K. That explains why you are the way you are.

i have no idea what this argument is about, but i am the proud owner of a smart as hell baby girl who in 10 years will give me two more ulcers and this is what i know:

deception is inherent
intimidation only works if you can execute
nothing dealing with children is mundane and predictable with the exceptions of eating and sleep (please god go to sleep)

my kid laughs when you smack her ass, she jumped off the couch, smacked her face and played with the little bead runny sets in the hospital while bleading out her eye. SHE NEEDED STICHES. how do you disipline a kid like that?

"no, you can not clean your ak, clean your room and then we will have dinner and MAYBE, MAYBE you can clean your rifle."

Personally, I'm willing to bet that there is a big correlation between kids who were disciplined by spankings (Or worse) and adults who grow up to think that physical violence is an acceptable and healthy way to solve conflict. Just a Hunch.

No, I'm not. Now you're being ridiculous. I'm arguing that a spanking is a specific type of ritualized beating. It is the act of striking repeatedly with the intent of causing pain. You don't have to resort to obvious fallacies simply because you're wrong on this point.

And you don't have to resort to being a dickhead because someone disagrees with you. Yet you do it all the time.

You still have yet to provide me with any statistical, non-biased sources that children that are spanked.. I said SPANKED.. as in swatted on the ass with an open palm, grow up to be violent individuals or grow up thinking violence is okay.

heh, i was spanked for not just actions, but if i screwed up after i did something, lied tried to hide it etc or if i hit my little sister (whatever i'd do to her i'd get worse). But man, backtalk, that got me a palm to the face. I didnt understand then, to me, i was right and being punished for standing up for myself when they were wrong. Now i understand a bit more about humility and getting off a damned high horse.

Explaining things in a calm rational manner is not always going to work. I'm not condoning spanking, i'm actually a little undecided how i should raise my kids if i ever have any, but i do believe there is a very large difference between spanking and beating.

My grandmother would tell me stories about how she'd have to go outside to get a switch when she'd done something wrong, that she'd get her whippin' with. If you didnt get a good one you'd be sent out to get a different one. A 'good' one she realised was a young one that yes, would sting, but wouldnt bruise or cause any real damage.

Yes, spanking is meant to sting, but esp for kids who are old enough not to like to be naked around their parents, giving them your ass to pop is definity humbling.

I have good friends who were hit as kids. Not spanked, hit and its a lot different.

Its funny, I used to get beat with a wire and a belt on occasion. My brothers too, but I can say that we usually deserved it. All the kids I knew when I moved to lily white town who were never spanked and given time outs, are to this day USUALLY the most fucked up losers who all ended up dropping out and becoming drug addicts. I guess, those times out really did the trick.

Being a dickhead meaning saying that you're wrong?

http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/bul1284539.pdf (This one's really long)

Delinquency, Corporal Punishment, and the Schools

Mothering Magazine Article: The Negative Effects of Spanking and some Healthy Alternatives

http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/mappvalsum.pdf (This article actually uses statistics to try and prove that a tactic of "conditional spanking", two or so mild swats delivered only when the child resists other forms of discipline, is not harmful. However, the authors are then unintentionally conceding that other forms of spanking are harmful. I don't really have a problem with what the author is advocating anyway- it's a far step removed from the spanking that Social Conservative parents advocate that is essentially a beating.)

Effects of spanking in early childhood American Family Physician - Find Articles

Corporal Punishment (Doesn't cite or use statistics, but it's interesting as a 110 year old read on the subject)

And on, and on, and on...