California Legislator Proposes Ban on Spanking

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Not spanking your child is NEVER harmful. Never.

sure it is.. Pain is and will always be an EXTREMELY effective learning/teaching tool..

until they learn to rationalize, spanking is a very significant deterrent to unwanted behavior..

would you rather spank your child (doing no harm really) when he reached into a fire/stove/oven etc.... or have him scarred for life just so he learned fire was hot?

even as an adult Pain accelerates the learning process.. new sabre fencers who 'showed me their wristes' got a very painful cut to them.. sure i could have tapped them lightly, or stopped and reminded of the poor technique, but the didnt repeat the same mistake anywhere near as often when the repercussions for failure was a painful reminder and not simple a lost point..

in life and death environments/circumstances pain in training is a small price when compared to death..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Pain is and will always be an EXTREMELY effective learning/teaching tool.

Right. As a natural consequence, yes. Not as a parental disciplinary tool.

Hunger is an effective motivator, too, but you wouldn't starve your child to get him to get better grades.

Quote

would you rather spank your child when he reached into a fire/stove/oven etc.... or have him scarred for life just so he learned fire was hot?

It's not an either/or. Find another way to discipline your kid.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not spanking your child is NEVER harmful. Never.

Good luck on proving it. Perfectly fine opinion to have.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Right. As a natural consequence, yes. Not as a parental disciplinary tool.

Thats what you think, but that does not make it the truth. Pain is a great teacher. That is a fact.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Right. As a natural consequence, yes. Not as a parental disciplinary tool.

Thats what you think, but that does not make it the truth. Pain is a great teacher. That is a fact.

Sometimes the natural consequence is getting hit by a car, or getting burned, or drowning in the pool. Sometimes a spank on the bottom gets a message across to a young child that time out doesn't. When used with discretion, a spanking can let young children know that a particular behavior is something that they really shouldn't do....

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Pain is and will always be an EXTREMELY effective learning/teaching tool.

Right. As a natural consequence, yes. Not as a parental disciplinary tool.

Hunger is an effective motivator, too, but you wouldn't starve your child to get him to get better grades.

Quote

would you rather spank your child when he reached into a fire/stove/oven etc.... or have him scarred for life just so he learned fire was hot?

It's not an either/or. Find another way to discipline your kid.

nope not going to happen, if/when i have a child it will be disciplined in exactly the same manner i was, hopefully to the same effect.

i'm guessing you were never sent to bed without supper for disobedience either.... doesnt take many missed meals to learn to behave at the dinner table..

what you seem to lack is an understanding of how to connect cause and effect.. While Pain is the initial (de)motivator, as the child learns to rationalize it is transitioned into the desire not to displease the parent/authority figure, however you cannot reason with a toddler. In time being spanked becomes a MUCH more preferable option than having to face "the look" (for the child)

i question how much actual personal discipline children raised by your 'kinder gentler' methods actually have.. ofc that DOES explain some of the 'whining bitches' (no better term for it, sorry) ive seen as military recruits in recent years as well..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Trent 0]

Yes... the answer is always to give your government more say-so in your lives. All hail the claw!!!

Oh, hello again!

[jaaska 0]

Quote

At no other time in life is it appropriate or legal to hit another person.

Why should the ONE exception to this law/rule/code of conduct be our own children?

I agree with you that the government should stay out of our private lives when it comes to consenting adults. And honestly, even about how we raise our children. But this is different. This is protecting someone from harm.

This law says NO ONE gets hit. Not you, not me, not any child.

I'm cool with that.

Hellos...

This is the most rational answer I've seen on this topic.

I don't know for the other EU-countries for sure, but at least in the nordic countries (Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) spanking has been outlawed some 30 years (or so), regardless of the victims age.

I know that spanking (or physically harming/hitting/etc.) your wife was legal or at least not punishable when done in your own home (now this is just a guess) a hundred years a go or so. I'm sure the situation was quite the same over there in the states - how do you feel about it now?

The best argument is that no human been should have live in a fear of violence (and believe me, physically punishing someone, whether this person is young, old, woman or man is in fact violence). I mean my friends sometimes do very stupid things - I would not try to teach them a lesson so that they would not do it again. One could even argue that a grown up could in fact cope with spanking better than a fragile (in this case under 3 years old, if I got it right) baby - thus if you want to keep spanking legally, it should apply the same rules to everyone in every age .

Some dog owners believe in strict, physical harming type of training and yes, the dogs do get very obedient and (sometimes, not always) mentally disturbed. One of the best trained dogs I have seen belongs to my sister in law. Funny thing, she doesn't believe in violence so she trained the dog without it. I mean, if you can raise dogs without violence, one could think it's possible to do likewise when talking about human beings.

Just my 5 (euro) cents...

PS:

* And yes, I do have a child, and no, I haven't spanked him even when he did very stupid/dangerous things.

** No, I haven't been spanked as a child (even when I did dangerous and stupid things) and yes, I did grow up just fine without the violence.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

- how do you feel about it now?

I feel there's still too many people that can't wrap their mind around the difference between punishment and violence, for one.

To all of you that have raised children without spanking - congratulations! That does not, however, mean that your experience will work for ALL children and ALL parents.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

people that can't wrap their mind around the difference between punishment and violence

Those would be people from ages 0 to 3 years old.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

people that can't wrap their mind around the difference between punishment and violence

Those would be people from ages 0 to 3 years old.

My kids already understood that actions have consequences by the time they were 3. And, you know - none of mine got spankings before that age, either, and very seldom PAST that age.

As I said above - for some children, that approach works, and for some, it doesn't.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

i'm guessing you were never sent to bed without supper for disobedience either

Withholding food from a child from age 0-3 is dangerous.

Quote

what you seem to lack is an understanding of how to connect cause and effect.. While Pain is the initial (de)motivator, as the child learns to rationalize it is transitioned into the desire not to displease the parent/authority figure.

No. I think you lack understanding of child development. It's not that "I" don't understand how to connect cause and effect, it's that very young children don't know how to "rationalize it".

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[stayhigh 2]

naw hitting a kid doesn't make them a better kid,,,it will only turn the kid into masochism freak,,
pain is love, yes may i have another please,,,,,
spank me more,,i've been very bad this week,,

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

My kids already understood that actions have consequences by the time they were 3. And, you know - none of mine got spankings before that age, either

Impossible!

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[billvon 2,404]

>it's that very young children don't know how to "rationalize it".

?? If a kid (even a 3 year old kid) sticks his finger in a light bulb socket and gets a shock, he will learn not to do that again. He will not assume the lamp hates him, and he will not have to rationalize that electricity is bad and the lamp uses electricity. He will just develop an aversion to sticking his finger in lamp sockets.

That's how children learn - they do something and observe the results. If they like the results they do it again. If they don't like the results they don't. This doesn't scar them or damage them psychically - it just causes them to learn.

The problem comes around when children have an opportunity to do things that they will _not_ survive - like, say, running into a busy street. If they are struck by a car and survive, then they will learn to not do that. But all too often they do not survive.

As a surrogate, a parent may spank or otherwise discipline a kid who runs into a busy street, so they associate running into the street with being spanked. That functions the same way the pain in their finger did - they develop an aversion to running in busy streets.

Needless to say in an ideal world all hazards (light bulb sockets, busy roads) are completely inaccessible to the kid until he can learn they're dangerous and avoid them by being told to do so. Also, in this ideal world, kids can be effectively disciplined by means other than spanking. But not all kids live in ideal worlds, and thus some parents occasionally need to use tools like spanking to prevent a greater harm (like being flattened by a truck.)

[freeflybella 0]

People have a tendency to think of children as small adults. You have to remember that up until 6-9 months of age, a child doesn't even really see himself as separate from his mother. Until well into their 2nd year, they have no impulse control. That means they can't stop themselves from doing something impulsively. YOU as a parent need to stop them. And if you're right there (where you should be), you can use any number of alternatives to teach your child what to and not to do.

Whether you choose to spank or not, the people who give "little swats" to get attention in dire situations have nothing to worry about. It's the ones who use "little swats" all day as a form of communication who need to think twice.

I think the law (no hitting under 3) sends the right message to the right people.

Anyway, the research is there on whether spanking works.

From the AAP

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Did you read the " I can understand the baby part tho"? To me a child under 5 is a baby. Once they get around other children in school for example and get out of line I have no problem w/ a swat to the ass

The problem here is that it is a downhill slide to total govt. control.

You say 5 yr. old, someone else says 7 yr. old.

Well, when they are old enough to smack you in the mouth and tell that they are taking the car for the evening, knowing damned well that you can't do a thing about it, because the law is on their side, it'll be to late.

The next thing is that you won't be able to raise your voice to them because it might damage their fragile egos.

I believe the Democratic party just loves the introduction of anarchy into society. Not that they could actually deal with the end results.

You're implying that parents can't earn their children's respect without corporal punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact the opposite is closer in my opinion. I'd say parents who need to hit or yell at their children to garner their respect are the least deserving of it.

I'm all for a limited government, but also think it should keep the role of protecting those who can't protect themselves. Though I'd prefer they simply investigate and prosecute the fuck out of parents who cross the abuse line, I wouldn't get particularly worked up over this law. Zero purpose is served by hitting an infant or toddler.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[akarunway 1]

Quote

>it's that very young children don't know how to "rationalize it".

?? If a kid (even a 3 year old kid) sticks his finger in a light bulb socket and gets a shock, he will learn not to do that again. He will not assume the lamp hates him, and he will not have to rationalize that electricity is bad and the lamp uses electricity. He will just develop an aversion to sticking his finger in lamp sockets.

That's how children learn - they do something and observe the results. If they like the results they do it again. If they don't like the results they don't. This doesn't scar them or damage them psychically - it just causes them to learn.

The problem comes around when children have an opportunity to do things that they will _not_ survive - like, say, running into a busy street. If they are struck by a car and survive, then they will learn to not do that. But all too often they do not survive.

As a surrogate, a parent may spank or otherwise discipline a kid who runs into a busy street, so they associate running into the street with being spanked. That functions the same way the pain in their finger did - they develop an aversion to running in busy streets.

Needless to say in an ideal world all hazards (light bulb sockets, busy roads) are completely inaccessible to the kid until he can learn they're dangerous and avoid them by being told to do so. Also, in this ideal world, kids can be effectively disciplined by means other than spanking. But not all kids live in ideal worlds, and thus some parents occasionally need to use tools like spanking to prevent a greater harm (like being flattened by a truck.)

Well said. My uncle told me to sick my finger in a light bulb socket as a kid. Shocked the fuck outta me. Do I respect electrcity? Hell yes. Do I hate him? Not a bit. Funny being I work w/ electricity all the time now

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[billvon 2,404]

>Whether you choose to spank or not, the people who give "little swats" to
>get attention in dire situations have nothing to worry about. It's the ones
>who use "little swats" all day as a form of communication who need to
>think twice.

I would tend to agree, although I can't say that I (as an outsider) will always know what's appropriate under the circumstances.

>I think the law (no hitting under 3) sends the right message to the right people.

Swat a kid for running into traffic, go to jail. It's a law they are talking about, not a suggestion.

If you want a law against constantly beating a child, then strengthen the laws we already have against child abuse. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a mother of a three year old who swats him on the bottom for pushing his two year old sister down the stairs. She gets fined/goes to jail, period. "It was justified! His sister broke ber back! And I only swatted him once!" Sorry, she's a criminal.

[rehmwa 2]

I was about to reply to bella with a similar post - also that she seems to be backing off now by allowing a "little swat" which I also thought she was against. But no reason now. You got it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freeflybella 0]

Hell-ooo? Right here?

I support the proposed law and believe that it is NOT appropriate to hit a child under 3 for any reason.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I support the proposed law and believe that it is NOT appropriate to hit a child under 3 for any reason

I have to agree..... But I also think the Legislator needs a time out to the Power Exchange in San Francisco...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Hell-ooo? Right here?

I support the proposed law and believe that it is NOT appropriate to hit a child under 3 for any reason.

Hi - What is you definition of "little swat" vs "hit"?

I also agree if "Hit" means board breaking force not unlike hitting in karate or a bar fight. Now that's just wrong.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freeflybella 0]

Hi!

Sorry, I said I was here - then ran smack into toddler bedtime. Which, as a single mama, is absof*ckinlutely at 7pm. Strict? Yes I can be.

Anyway, my definition of "little swat" is probably the same as yours. But I think you're referencing my reply to Bill where I said the 'little swatters in dire situations' have nothing to worry about.

First, spanking is not illegal now so I recognize that there are a wide variety of child spankers - from "dire situations only" to "everyday form of discipline/communication."

Second - what I meant was that those who spank (swat, hit, whatever) only in "dire situations" have nothing to worry about because those situations occur so very infrequently that choosing an alternate form of discipline should be very easy. (If they are not occurring infrequently - I'd suggest they have bigger issues at hand and it's probably more proof that the spanking is just not working.)

It's those who spank regularly and often who must alter their mindset and rethink how they discipline their child.

I'd also hazard a guess that the 'dire situation' spankers most likely don't spank their babies. But I could be wrong.

Anyway, the definition of "hit" is pretty clear. It includes all the little euphemisms. But again, I do understand what most here mean by little swat. Unfortunately, the law can't be that open to interpretation - especially when it comes to people hitting babies.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't know for the other EU-countries for sure, but at least in the nordic countries (Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) spanking has been outlawed some 30 years (or so), regardless of the victims age.

So no S&M is allowed between adults? I thought we Americans were the prudes.

Quote

Some dog owners believe in strict, physical harming type of training and yes, the dogs do get very obedient and (sometimes, not always) mentally disturbed. One of the best trained dogs I have seen belongs to my sister in law. Funny thing, she doesn't believe in violence so she trained the dog without it. I mean, if you can raise dogs without violence, one could think it's possible to do likewise when talking about human beings.

Type and size of dog? I think it's grossly wrong to generalize an entire species on a single example. Dog breeds vary far more than people do.

Some dogs will challenge for dominance in the house and if people are afraid, it will take advantage. Discipline is quite important when you have a 100lb dog in the home.