This is a load of ****. You don't need to spank your child to toughin him up.
I agree. You need to spank your child to discipline them. Them becoming a stronger individual is a good side-effect.
Children aren't pit dogs who need trained to fight through being beat up by their parents.
True. Or else we would be teaching our kids to go out and pick fights all the time. We don't want that do we?
So is r-a-p-e. Calling something 'tough love' doesn't justify an action.
Ohhhhhhhhhkay. Let's say that "A" is the r-a-p-i-s-t and "B" is the victim. B does not want to be r-a-p-e-d and yet A fails to respect B's wishes. All A wants is personal pleasure. A doesn't care about the well-being of B, therefore it's not 'tough love.' Tough love, for example, may be something like telling your sister that she is dressed immodestly. Although she may be offended, you are telling her this for her own good. Because girls often want a guy who will respect them as a person and yet girls show too much skin thus causing the wrong guys to become attracted to her. So telling your sister that she is immodest is an example of tough love... Because you are hurting and helping her at the same time. R-a-p-e does not help anyone. Spanking is also an example of tough love. You spank the child so that they learn that there are consequences for their actions. Although it may temporarily harm the child, but it is for their own good in the long run. Because sometimes you have to scale a valley to climb a mountain.
Children almost never toughin up when spanked. When a child does toughin up, generally the child has insane mental disorders which makes him completely unstable.
I like how you use words like "almost" and "generally" so that you can have words to fall back on if you are found to be wrong... Anyway, I was spanked and I am not insane and unstable. If I were insane, unstable and bad with children, then why have I had a job working with children for 3 years? And I do not spank the children I work with because the parents might be offended and/or worried for their child's safety.
Of course you can't give into a child's every whim, but it's not this or that, there are multiple approaches to handling children.
I believe that timeouts and taking privileges away are ways that make the child feel much much more powerless than spanking. If you force a child to remain immobile in a chair, will they feel like they have much power? If you show a child that you can take and give away anything of theirs that you please, will they feel like they have much power?
If you honestly think people only learn when in pain, then you need to seek help. Again, you're a danger to the children you work with and you need to quit your job.
For maximum quality in discipline, you must talk with the child after you spank them. Because if I were to walk into my job and start spanking every kid in sight, that would do nothing but get me fired. If I were only to talk with the children, that does not work either. I repeatedly tell them to stop stealing my hat, but they just think it's funny and they don't stop. Thus, it is a combination of spanking and talking that works. But, I am not allowed to physically discipline the children I work with and that is why they are a bunch of rebellious rebels.
Why show yourself to be bigger, stronger, and tell them that they should bow down to your every whim?
Timeouts and losing privileges is not much different from spanking if you're going to define it that way. They are immobilized until they bow down to your every whim and they don't get their things unless they obey your every command. So why show yourself to be bigger and stronger?
It's so much more rational to level with your child, to talk to them as if they're social beings, which they are.
Talking never works for the kids I work with. They always just think it's funny to splash water on me in the bathroom no matter what I tell them. Talking may be ineffective for me because I am not their parents, but I can't be sure.
This creates a trust issue in which children will stop talking to their parents about rules they break.
False. They will want to know why they got spanked so that they can avoid it in the future. So they talk with their parents and ask questions about an issue. When you answer their questions calmly, they will see things your way. When they see things your way, they will stop doing bad things. And when they stop doing bad things, you can stop spanking them.
When a child is screamed at for making poor grades, he'll often hide his report card so that he doesn't get in trouble.
Right. So the parents should help the child in school. They should be involved in studying with the child to help the child become a better student. In this case, you don't need to spank or scream at them.
When you spank a child, you do not teach them why what they did was wrong
Like I said up there: "If I were to walk into my job and start spanking every kid in sight, that would do nothing but get me fired. If I were only to talk with the children, that does not work either. I repeatedly tell them to stop stealing my hat, but they just think it's funny and they don't stop. Thus, it is a combination of spanking and talking that works."
If you believe a child should be hurt before they're even told that they're doing wrong, then that's even more sick than using spanking as a punishment for intentionally doing harm.
Sigh... It's like how the Bible doesn't say "Do not watch R rated movies." And yet the Bible does teach against the general content of the R rated movie. But of course, you probably don't believe the Bible... So my point is: Even though you didn't specifically tell the child not to do something, they still should have a basic understanding that that certain action is wrong. If they don't have that understanding, you have failed as a parent. So if a child 'accidentally' breaks a rule, then yes, spank them because if you do nothing, that child will believe that their action was fine.
If you want to make a child behave properly, you find out why they're acting out and you try to fix their problem.
Okay. So the kids steal my hat because they think it's fun. They are doing it because they want to have fun. Having fun is their problem. Thus, keep them from having fun. Right?
Shouldn't a child avoid causing trouble because they feel bad instead of avoid trouble as a means of avoiding pain?
If you spank a child for doing something wrong, they feel how the person they wronged feels. Thus they do not want others to feel that way. And they will not hit others because it they will feel bad. Hey presto, you have an ethical child and you can stop spanking them.
A person should do good not because they fear the negative consequences, but because they're an ethical person.
Clearly, children are not very ethical to begin with and that is why they do bad things such as steal my hat. They think it's fun to steal my hat. All they see is them having fun, they don't care how the other person feels. If you try talking with them, like I have since I am not allowed to spank them, it doesn't work because all they care about are themselves.
You shouldn't give a child everything they want on a whim and spoil them, but you shouldn't hit them either. These are the only two forms of parenting you know of, which is sad.
The only two forms of parenting you know are: "Cruelly abusing" the child, and talking with the child... And by "Cruelly abusing" I meant your definition of spanking. When my dad was a child and he disobeyed, his dad (my grandfather) spanked him as hard as he could...with a belt. When my mom was a child and she disobeyed, her mother (my grandmother) spanked her as hard as she could...with a wooden spoon. Occasionally, my dad was punished by being forced to clean the chicken coup for a week all by himself. Whenever my mom called someone names, her parents made her put a bar of soap in her mouth. Back then, that was acceptable. Nowadays it is absolutely detestable. And that kind of abuse my parents went through was very rough. But thankfully, my parents, when they had me, were able to tone it down and find the balance between abuse and no punishment. That balance is spanking. My parents only spanked my with their hands and never with more than half their strength. That is the balance, and that is what discipline should be... The correct kind of spanking is not as abusive as you make it appear to be. And talking alone, does not work either. Thus my point is, you are being black and white by only seeing the options of your definition of spanking (abuse) and dialogue.
LOL **** that ****. Children who's parents smoke tend to start smoking themselves. Children with alcoholic parents also tend to be more prone to becoming alcoholics. What you said just isn't true.
Get ready for another big paragraph... ahem... My grandparents smoked, and none of their four children or grandchildren do. My other grandparents were divorced, and none of their 5 children grandchildren are. One of my aunts is alcoholic and neither of her two kids are. One of my friend's dad was an alcoholic and smoked weed regularly. Not only did that father turn his own life around but none of his three kids do drugs. My best friend's grandfather swears even worse than you do and none of his children or grandchildren do.... Well there are plenty of my real life examples that offspring are rarely effected by parents. Well there is one, one of my aunts is overweight and so is her child... But that's 1 out of... 6 examples I gave?
So it's okay for mommy and daddy to hit you, but it's not okay for you to hit others? Seriously, this **** doesn't add up inside the brain of a child. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?
Siblings are often and naturally competitive against each other. Usually fights stir among the siblings because they are rivals with each other. This shallow violence is not related to parents who spank as discipline. Parents spank their children not out of anger, but because it is tough love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJNkZHIFLf8
It sounds to me, as in all other cases in that show, the father was being more abusive than disciplinary. The father was no doubt furious, frustrated and fed-up with how his kids were behaving. Thus, he spanked his kids so he could vent his anger, he wasn't spanking them as discipline.
They don't think about what they did wrong, they think about how ridiculous it is that they're getting punished, or hurt.
Spanking alone has a good chance of making the child think about why they got punished. If you got spanked wouldn't you like to know why? If you got thrown in jail, that would make you regret and think about what got you there. It's the same way with spanking. A child thinks about why they got punished. But having a follow-up talk is far more effective.
I'm pretty God **** certain he wouldn't have used that as an example if it didn't work.
Taking things away from the kids I work with, never works. They still push my patience to it's limits. But that could be due to the fact that I am not their parents.
Why would the child start hitting others? She was raised properly.
WHAT? If the child is raised properly then they will hit people? I thought you said children shouldn't be raised as fighting dogs? Are you saying kids should be raised to be violent? If that's what you meant, then YOU are the one who needs to seek professional help.
So what IF she does something bad? He talks to her and he shows disappointment, which is enough since he built a strong bond with his daughter.
And in a few years, that girl is going to realize that she gets no real punishment except for her dad being slightly disappointed in her. When she realizes her dad only punishes her psychologically, she will do whatever she pleases until she gets a real punishment.
Watch this video, all 11 minutes of it.
Wowzors. So let's take his boiling water on the stove situation. When you tell a child that they will get hurt if they touch the pot of water, what does the child do? They don't touch it because they don't want to get hurt. Now a child at my workplace keeps hanging on the basketball goal net. What am I supposed to tell him? How am I supposed to reason with him? All he will want is pleasure for himself, he will tune out anything you or I tell him.
As for what the guy in the video said about not putting yourself in the situation where the child can possibly get to the boiling water... How will the child learn if he/she is never put in that situation. If you always keep your child out of danger for them, they will have difficulties in solving their own problems in the future.
The dude in the video also made clear that putting up a few gates in not the same as imprisoning the child. But what everyone fails to see is that spanking (with the right intentions and not spanking them out of anger and frustration) is not the same as abusing them.
Also, the fellow in the video gave terrible situations. Why? Well the boiling water situation for instance. When the child wants to touch the pot of water, they are not doing anything wrong, they are just curious. No one in their right mind would spank a child for being curious. Thus he is setting up irrelevant situations make spankings sound immoral. The situation he should be setting up is one like a child stealing my hat. This situation is much better because the child is not doing something out of curiosity and they are not going to get hurt from the consequence. The child merely wants to have fun. But that fun is at the expense of your happiness. But the child will not care about your happiness, all they see is that it's funny when you chase after your hat.
The situation of the child running into the street is a faulty one. It is faulty because the child naturally wants to independently explore. They don't know that by being in the street, they could get hurt. So the child really is doing nothing wrong. All you have to do is tell them is to get out of the street or they will get killed. I know a family who has lost their child because he ran into the street. I went to his funeral almost exactly a year ago. Now you might be thinking: "I thought you said that if a child does wrong accidentally then you have failed as a parent." Well... there is a difference between doing wrong and curiosity. A child pulling on a basketball goal net is an example of wrong. It's wrong because it is tearing up other people's property. A child running into the street is curiosity. It is curiosity because they might want to see what is on the other side, or maybe they went to chase something like a dog on the other side of the street. The child doesn't know the dangers of being in the street and they also don't see how them being in the street hurts anyone else, so they think it is okay to run into the street. If they run into the street after you told them not to, then that is when punishment is called for.
Now read over these last few paragraphs a few times and think about them.
-
Also, I was not able to post last night because I had to help my dad fix his truck. And I didn't help him because I was afraid of consequences, I didn't help him because I wanted to (I would have much rather been responding to you or playing minecraft). I helped him because I knew it was the right thing to do. Also, I don't have time to respond to other posts because I have already spend three hours on this one.
Now why don't you save us all a lot of time, and see things my way.
