paulsol wrote:
KingJohn wrote:
I don't believe that either of those statements are true. I think a child can tell the difference between a swat and a beating. They aren't the same in scale and even in the child's limited state of experience they will be able to tell the difference.
I disagree. Try for a moment to put yourself in the childs position, difficult as that is. Its not the severity of the slap, its the fact of the slap, and what it signifies in the childs developing mind ie. withdrawel of love,trust,respect etc. This is where the harm comes from. Not the physical act itself but what it signifies.
And I disagree that it causes any lasting mental harm.
Quote:
KingJohn wrote:
I also disagree with the idea that anytime a parent uses physical discipline that it is due to anger. I believe the majority of parents have their children's best interests at heart and act out of a desire to conform their child's behavior to acceptable societal norms.
Of course its anger. What else can it be? We can
tell ourselves that its in their best interests, were doing it out of love, but really, we're just repeating what our parents told us when they were slapping us 'for our own good'.
So far, nope. Never once in anger. Not even kinda. First you tell me how to raise my kids, now you're telling me how i feel? Glad you know me better than I do.
Quote:
Raolan wrote:
The difference between abuse and discipline is the severity.
In
your opinion. From the PoV of a child, there is
no difference.
There you go with the mind reading again. I bet they would know the difference. In one case they know they did something wrong, in the other case they dont. (i'll add that i dont think resorting to physical punishment when the child wouldnt have known better is the right thing to do)
Besides they'd have to be abused before being able to compare the two. Id have to say there is more to abuse than severity though.
Quote:
Quote:
You honestly expect to reason with a child? You either don't have kids or have the very rare exception.
Let me ask you this, your kid does something wrong and you tell them to go to their room and sit in a timeout, they refuse, what then?
Of
course I expect to reason with my child. When he does something wrong, he gets an explanation as to what he's done wrong, why its unacceptable, and has the consequesnces explained to him. As Pensive said, there are plenty more choices between 'hit them' and 'time out'.
If that actually works, great. No need to take the punishment further. If and when it doesnt, then you have to go the next step.
Quote:
KTurner said :
Quote:
Punishment is punishment. They cry like the world is ending whether you swat em or send em to timeout.
Exactly what I'm saying. Kids dont diferentiate degrees of physical punishment. Explain, respect, and be consistent. No need to resort to physical violence. that just shows the child that violence is an acceptable method to get your own way.
Again, if the kid isnt ever abused there are no 'degrees of physical punishment'. At least not in my book. Stern yell, threaten with the next step (majority of the time the chain stops here), smack/timeout, followed by hugs and a chat. Id almost argue that timeout is more damaging mentally than a smack seeing how it's 100% mental discipline, ie abandonment, humiliation, withdrawal of love etc. Yet that is perfectly acceptable.
It all comes down to personal definition of 'abuse' and it's only natural that people would disagree since its so subjective to begin with. Fact is, its been proven that if done right physical and non-physical punishment both work
fine.
I know a child that has never once been physically punished and hes a royal **** that is constantly running around hitting people at 8. My experience shows that the two arent as related as you think.
