It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
While such campaigns are meant to lessen child abuse - a legitimate concern - they end up working against parental authority: the ability of parents to control and discipline their own children. This is because these campaigns effectively equate corporal punishment with abuse, or at least imply that smacking is counterproductive and leads to child abuse. While we should all be concerned about child abuse, we should also be concerned about those who are unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between child abuse and physical discipline. We already have laws on the books against assault, abuse, and so on. But smacking is not abuse.
Part of the reason for the ban was that it was hoped that it would reduce child abuse. OK, so what does the evidence tell us? What can we learn from the Swedish experiment? In 1996 an important study into child abuse in Sweden was published. It found, among other things, that Swedish data indicated a 489% increase in child abuse statistics from 1981 through 1994, as well as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors.
The opposition uses expressions such as demonized spanking, where it is simple and clear that it's not the action that's demonized but the executor of the action.
An open-handed single "swat" to a child's clothed bottom is not the same thing as a closed fist to the face, a humiliating experience of repeated "swats" to a child's bare-bottom in public, or any other kind of "discipline" that leaves a bruise.
I also really got stuck by the opponents expression of „standard operating procedure”. Let me point out that we are talking about a human being here. And that is what many parents seem to forget.
Most spankings do happen out of frustration and desperation.
I need to mention that I did read the two sources (articles) supplied by you and simply dismiss them for the fact that tax dollars are always somehow allocated to be spent and used because they need to be used. I don't beleive in statistics or the numerization of human experimentation as they only reflect a small amount of the whole and give you a falsified picture.
Rosemond does not advocate spanking children after age 9 or 10, as it is not effective. Further, parents who spank their teenagers likely have not established clear discipline prior to that point, and their teens are likely engaging in significant antisocial behavior. Spanking has no effect, and likely does cause significant resentment. It is not the spanking that has caused the problems; however, it is the history of inadequate or ineffective parenting.
Exactly my point. They don't. Learning through punishement? I know of children (own experience and observed) that smile and giggle even after smacking the back of their hands several times.tWhat then? So smacking didn't help in the first place. Raise your voice, make the child become afraid of you. And if that doesn't help, increase the force of your smack?
Answer #2: Ask yourself, why the child is constantly breaking the rules. Have these rules been actually extablished and been understood by the child? Most times children find themselfs in situations that could have been prevented by the neglecting supervising parent. Praise children often for their good behaviour and you will find breaking rules will fade.
Answer #3: No offence warrants a smack. Your example only shows neglect of the parents again. Teach them where and provide them space to play. And supervise them so they don't end up getting hit by a car.
Keep children from making mistakes? Isn't it the essence of life to learn from your mistakes?
The smacking itself does not prevent a repetition of a mistake or doing a bad thing. Only through verbal communication and the teaching of right behaviour and proper supervision can you prevent bad things from happening and mistakes being made over and over again.
Answer #1: You can't. But you can try with the language capacity of a child.
Answer #2: Repetition, consistency, patience. It's a lot to expect from a child to learn something at once. Oh, well. When it happens twice. Try again. You're the adult. The role-model. How can you expect a child to be self-dsiciplined if you give up yourself at that stage?
Answer #3: No. Not at all. A child can turn from good to bad or from bad to good at any stage during their life cycles. Too many influences we have no control over it. But at least, if you don't smack, you can at least say, they didn't learn that from me.
It seems to me that far too many parents misunderstand the concepts and differences between discipline and punishment
My opponent states: ”Praising good behavior works; some of us call it bribery, which works as well” Praising and bribery are two completly different things.
Although some people who abuse their partners were themselves abused as children, this does not mean that being spanked, as opposed to abused as a child, will lead to abusive behavior as an adult. He notes that most men from his generation were spanked as children, but the majority did not grow up to be abusive toward their partners.
He explains that with a toddler age 24 months or so, a quick spank on the butt, followed by the reprimand (i.e., "No, I will not let you spit at me"), then by the consequence is effective. For a young child, placing the child in a chair with the warning, "You will stay there until I say you can get up" followed by taking a step backward, waiting one second, and then telling the child, "Now get up" is sufficient. This catches the child's attention, provides a rule, provides and consequence, and established that you are in charge.
A careful look at U.S. crime statistics also refutes the idea that spanking equals more societal violence. Between 1985 and 1993, violent crime actually decreased by 20 per cent among males 25 or older, while it increased 65 per cent for males 18 to 24 and by 165 per cent for 14- to 17-year-old males. So those who grew up in a period of more spanking were, and are, less violent than younger people who have grown up in a period of declining approval and practice of spanking.
Opening Arguement - Benarius:
clearly a badly inherited form of social conditioning
Great point and one that should be the foundation for the rest of his argument. I expect to see alternative strategies for the 'conditioning' of one's offspring.
Opening Argument - skeptic1
but to physically get my attention to point out that I had done something improper or wrong.
An excellent rebuttal to the topic. I expect to see a focus on what constitutes abuse from her subsequent arguments. The citing of the Swedish experiment goes a long way in refuting Benarius' argument of:
I also beleive that many of the worlds problems today would be handled differently by a generation that never experienced this ill behaviour of social injustice upon children.
By showing that 'minor vs minor' physical conflict jumped. A relevant point that without parents to demonstrate some sort of reference point for physicality that it will be used somewhat indiscriminently by those who don't know better. I wish skeptic1 had gone further in depth with this point...but overall she succeeds in taking the Opening Arguement.
First Rebuttal - Benarius:
A very reactionary presentation as he goes on suppositions based upon his feelings. He feels that a smack could turn into irreperable damage. His suggestion to talk instead of hitting is a valid one and I only wish that he had expounded upon this to include a linear timeline of childhood development and strategies for teaching. He did not and as such his entire first arguement is unnecessarily defensive.
And unfortunately, this theme dominates Benarius' argument the rest of the way. His contention that it is the parents shortcoming to use physical means is a valid one but not necessarily what this debate was about as resorting to physical means is not necessarily abuse.
Skeptic1 was more successful at rebuttal and presented her argument in a far more concise and organized fashion.
In fact, I would think it would be close to impossible to reason with a 2 year old in a way that the toddler got a lasting lesson from the talking to. A swat on the bottom would certainly get their attention and make them realize that they had done something wrong. It wouldn't hurt and it would teach them a lesson.
The above quote demonstrates quite clearly her position and was never successfully rebutted by Benarius.
Winner by a very comfortable margin is skeptic1.
Challenge Match: Benarius vs skeptic1: "If You Do That Again, You Will Get Such A Smack!!!"
While Benarius started off fairly strong, he was actually falling behind even in the opening salvo under the barrage of skeptic1’s massive source material and complete logic.
Benarius’ comment when asked by skeptic why smacking is abuse now and was not before;
The „victims” have learned to talk about it and not be ashamed anymore. None of the children actually ever liked it.
Really tells the tale in this debate, for no one likes discipline. Yet discipline is necessary.
Benarius could have taken this debate in a good direction and made a battle of it, however combined with a lackadaisical approach and missing posts, the debate easily goes to ….