Evidence for God from Science

NOW they tell us - apparently my dad disagreed with that theory! He "spanked," LOL.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/04/ ... esnt-work/

The article uses this statement as evidence: "They found that children who were spanked were more likely to defy their parents." Well, DUH! Of course it's the kids who are more likely to defy parents that get spanked - that doesn't meant that the spanking caused the defiance!

I was spanked (well, that's the PC word for it, LOL). We spanked our kids when they were younger. Guess what - it stopped most of the nonsense EVERY time. That's when they KNOW you are serious and are unwilling to put up with further nonsense. Fear of being spanked made me realize, as a kid, that if words weren't enough, they were backed up by further actions - which I found to be extremely effective. But if spanking is ALL a parent does, or he relies on it - that's a huge mistake. While an option, it should be used only in certain, considerably more serious circumstances. Growing up in the 60s to mid-70s, I knew of very few kids that weren't at least occasionally spanked. And my generation had and has a LOT more respect for authority and rules than of those generations after me. So silly. But, make no mistake, there's a line that should never be crossed with corporal punishment - which is wrong, emotionally and physically. And in my experience, little boys need to be spanked a lot more than girls. Most kids I knew that were never spanked were either really well-behaved or they were terrible brats.

Who here was spanked, who never was? And who still is?

I never was. I can honestly say it would have helped iron out my flaws. The problem was, my mom HATED her father for what he did to her: some physical, a lot of verbal abuse. I believe that, between my mom and dad, she said she would divorce my dad faster than he could blink if he ever laid a hand on me or my siblings, because they were never slapped either.

Violence is a very REAL consequence of behaving badly in the real world.
It is a lesson that NEEDS to be learned early on.
As some of you know I used to work security at nightclubs and strip clubs up until I was 28.
In terms of dealing with troublemakers, we got many of the " You can't touch me, not even my parents can touch me" crowd.
Violence is the consequence of writing cheques with your mouth that your body can't cash.

Some people were just a "Bart!"




Others: "Thank you sir, may I have another?" Typically administered with a paddle normally used in a jon boat!

I spank my wife when she's naughty. Does that count?

I spank my wife when she's naughty. Does that count?

Be honest, Rick - she has to spank you far more often - being the naughty boy you are!

Spanking is a lost art -- Not Beating-- and there's a Big difference. Spanking Should be the negative consequence when a child decides to be disobedient after they have been told No and told what the consequence will be. And many times, once or twice will be sufficient for the child / young person to get the message. A couple of swats on the bottom should be sufficient. Not done in anger.
But -- it Does work. Kids need a really negative consequence to wrong actions.

Philip wrote:NOW they tell us - apparently my dad disagreed with that theory! He "spanked," LOL.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/04/ ... esnt-work/

The article uses this statement as evidence: "They found that children who were spanked were more likely to defy their parents." Well, DUH! Of course it's the kids who are more likely to defy parents that get spanked - that doesn't meant that the spanking caused the defiance!

I was spanked (well, that's the PC word for it, LOL). We spanked our kids when they were younger. Guess what - it stopped most of the nonsense EVERY time. That's when they KNOW you are serious and are unwilling to put up with further nonsense. Fear of being spanked made me realize, as a kid, that if words weren't enough, they were backed up by further actions - which I found to be extremely effective. But if spanking is ALL a parent does, or he relies on it - that's a huge mistake. While an option, it should be used only in certain, considerably more serious circumstances. Growing up in the 60s to mid-70s, I knew of very few kids that weren't at least occasionally spanked. And my generation had and has a LOT more respect for authority and rules than of those generations after me. So silly. But, make no mistake, there's a line that should never be crossed with corporal punishment - which is wrong, emotionally and physically. And in my experience, little boys need to be spanked a lot more than girls. Most kids I knew that were never spanked were either really well-behaved or they were terrible brats.

Who here was spanked, who never was? And who still is?

I wonder if the people behind this study would come to the same conclusion with criminals. If physical punishing a disobedient child by the parent only results in more disobedient behavior, would physical punishing a criminal by the police only cause the criminal to become more disobedient? If so, perhaps they should take away the guns, pepper spray, and night sticks from the police and force the police to use other means of getting the criminals to behave.

Ken

Spanking might work on a child who doesn't try to run away. More often then not all I can get in to avoid a chase is a swift kick up their backside. Kicking is technically not beating though right?

Early and mid-60s, my dad used a leather belt on us boys. Then we graduated to a ping-pong paddle - which could be brutal. I think dad liked the light weight, wide-girth smacking surface, easy ergonomics, and the ability to generate quick heat build up from multiple, machine-gun-like licks. First lick stings a good bit, but then the friction of the subsequent ones burn like your butt is on fire! Plus, it wasn't like neat, fraternity boy licks - it was like some crazed kamikaze, you never knew at what angle or what part of you would get nailed. Dang, I STILL hate ping pong, LOL! Now, as shocking as that is to people 40 and younger, that was so typical, back then, because corporal punishment was universally meted out to kids - especially to boys by fathers (my younger sisters were almost never spanked). But I will tell you this - we KNEW, after being giving a whipping for some dumb thing: 1) to not do them ever again, and 2) we knew my dad meant business! It worked, but was too brutal and also was used FAR too often, oftentimes for silly behaviors that didn't nearly deserve such. In my house, it was "yes sir, no sir, or ONLY the explanation my dad wanted - no less, but no more. There was ZERO mouthing off to my dad! He demanded and received absolute respect. Heck, my dad's father grew up in the late 1880s to mid 1890s. So my dad used the best of 19th century child discipline techniques that he'd had used on himself, as a child. Dad used to say WE didn't know what real punishment was like? Um, and we didn't WANT to know what could be any worst. I had (mostly) a very healthy fear of risking my dad's wrath - which a lot of good came from - because it kept me out of a huge amount of trouble.

My mom used those metal shoe horns for spanking me. One or two twangs with That and nothing more was needed. That was Upstairs. Was downstairs once and did 'something' thinking that the only one was Upstairs. Well -- the downstairs coat closet had one Also. I don't think it was ever needed again after That.
Kids Need to know that there is a painful consequence to bad actions.
And some parents go by the philosophy of 'let kids be kids'. But That only works when they are babies / in the cute / innocence stage. After That they need to be taught how to play nicely, share, etc, Which is why a lot of kid's first words are 'no,no'