Is It Ok To Hit A Child?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Traveler+Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 12 2005, 04:04 PM

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to  "paddle" the behind?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best?

What justifies beating Children?

The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing.

The Traveler

This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 21 2005, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 21 2005, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Traveler@Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 12 2005, 04:04 PM

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to  "paddle" the behind?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best?

What justifies beating Children?

The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing.

The Traveler

This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children.

I was drawing a parallel. On another thread I have opposed a cognitive behavior because I saw no benefit for society. Our friend Cal supported the behavior using the arguments as I have applied them to beating of children. He claimed the behavior is okay because adults found pleasure in the behavior – I am pointing out, so other can see how silly that argument appears to me. Such arguments are not reason to an intelligent person they are excuses for someone that wrapped up in themself.

Our friend Cal said I should expand my horizons because there are other cultures that survive without loving parents caring for their biological children. I wanted all to see how silly that argument appeared.

The point is my friend Jenda, and I do not think you quite got it, what is best for society is most likely what is also the best for children. Not what is okay or what we can get by with in some primitive society or even what parents find pleasure doing. Children’s lives are very much dependent of what parents (and society) teach – both intentionally and unintentionally, by the environment they create for children beginning from before birth until children are 25. The science to back my opinion is in a number of articles in the March National Geographic Mag. You might want to read the articles concerning the development of the human brain.

I believe we have an obligation to sacrifice our opinions, pleasures, desires, urges and other such things that are in conflict for providing the optimum environment for benefiting children and society. We do not sacrifice children and society for the benefit of our opinions, pleasures, desires, urges, passions and other such things and then think society will be the better for it.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 12 2005, 04:04 PM

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to  "paddle" the behind?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best?

What justifies beating Children?

The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing.

The Traveler

Trav--was that posting directed to me? I can't read anything in it that sounds like you read what I posted.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 21 2005, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 21 2005, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Traveler@Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 12 2005, 04:04 PM

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to  "paddle" the behind?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best?

What justifies beating Children?

The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing.

The Traveler

This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children.

What do you mean "not EVEN" Cal? I thought I was the one most adamantly AGAINST any kind of physical punishment? Has my pacifist position been usurped?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Mar 21 2005, 04:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Mar 21 2005, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 21 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by -Traveler@Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 12 2005, 04:04 PM

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to  "paddle" the behind?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best?

What justifies beating Children?

The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing.

The Traveler

This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children.

I was drawing a parallel. On another thread I have opposed a cognitive behavior because I saw no benefit for society. Our friend Cal supported the behavior using the arguments as I have applied them to beating of children. He claimed the behavior is okay because adults found pleasure in the behavior – I am pointing out, so other can see how silly that argument appears to me. Such arguments are not reason to an intelligent person they are excuses for someone that wrapped up in themself.

Our friend Cal said I should expand my horizons because there are other cultures that survive without loving parents caring for their biological children. I wanted all to see how silly that argument appeared.

The point is my friend Jenda, and I do not think you quite got it, what is best for society is most likely what is also the best for children. Not what is okay or what we can get by with in some primitive society or even what parents find pleasure doing. Children’s lives are very much dependent of what parents (and society) teach – both intentionally and unintentionally, by the environment they create for children beginning from before birth until children are 25. The science to back my opinion is in a number of articles in the March National Geographic Mag. You might want to read the articles concerning the development of the human brain.

I believe we have an obligation to sacrifice our opinions, pleasures, desires, urges and other such things that are in conflict for providing the optimum environment for benefiting children and society. We do not sacrifice children and society for the benefit of our opinions, pleasures, desires, urges, passions and other such things and then think society will be the better for it.

The Traveler

YOu completely misread the meaning of what I said about HOW some parents justify hitting their kids. My point was that parents sometimes THINK they are doing their kids a favor by hitting them, when what the parent is REALLY doing is simply venting their own frustration, which does no good for the child, and simply relieves the parent of their frustration. The parent is doing it for HIS/HER benefit, not the benefit of the child. Which is a reason NOT to hit the kid---it harms the kid. How can I be any clearer.

Now, would you please stop misrepresenting my position on things.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 21 2005, 08:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 21 2005, 08:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 21 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by -Traveler@Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 12 2005, 04:04 PM

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to  "paddle" the behind?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best?

What justifies beating Children?

The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing.

The Traveler

This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children.

What do you mean "not EVEN" Cal? I thought I was the one most adamantly AGAINST any kind of physical punishment? Has my pacifist position been usurped?

I only said "...........not even Cal..........." because he was quoting you as the OP, not for any other reason. I understood that your stance is that spanking a child should never be done. Maybe I should have said, "especially not Cal".

[Cal]

zNo problem, Jenda.

[Traveler]

The Traveler

YOu completely misread the meaning of what I said about HOW some parents justify hitting their kids. My point was that parents sometimes THINK they are doing their kids a favor by hitting them, when what the parent is REALLY doing is simply venting their own frustration, which does no good for the child, and simply relieves the parent of their frustration. The parent is doing it for HIS/HER benefit, not the benefit of the child. Which is a reason NOT to hit the kid---it harms the kid. How can I be any clearer.

Now, would you please stop misrepresenting my position on things.

I am just trying to understand you logic in light of other threads.

If a parent was born with an orientation of child beating why should we try to change their orientation? Child beating is nothing more that a cognitive function. Why treat this cognitive function any different that other cognitive functions? I think there are primitive societies that beat children and have survived. My friend Cal – you need to expand your “little world”.

Sorry that you do not get my sarcasm. Have a nice day – and I hope you can feel good because that’s what’s important – Right – that is making everybody feel good about their cognitive orentition activities?

The Traveler

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Traveler@Mar 22 2005, 04:44 PM

The Traveler

YOu completely misread the meaning of what I said about HOW some parents justify hitting their kids. My point was that parents sometimes THINK they are doing their kids a favor by hitting them, when what the parent is REALLY doing is simply venting their own frustration, which does no good for the child, and simply relieves the parent of their frustration. The parent is doing it for HIS/HER benefit, not the benefit of the child. Which is a reason NOT to hit the kid---it harms the kid. How can I be any clearer.

Now, would you please stop misrepresenting my position on things.

I am just trying to understand you logic in light of other threads.

If a parent was born with an orientation of child beating why should we try to change their orientation? Child beating is nothing more that a cognitive function. Why treat this cognitive function any different that other cognitive functions? I think there are primitive societies that beat children and have survived. My friend Cal – you need to expand your “little world”.

Sorry that you do not get my sarcasm. Have a nice day – and I hope you can feel good because that’s what’s important – Right – that is making everybody feel good about their cognitive orentition activities?

The Traveler

I think he is trying to equate spanking a child with homosexuality.

[pushka]

Sounds like he's frustrated!! LOL

[Traveler]

I believe it is sad to make victims and excuses for cognitive behaviors. I had hope that intelligence would take president among reasonable types. I had hope that we could understand and admit what cognitive activity is and that one can be a master of their cognition and not a slave.

Jenda, I thought better of you.

Had I asked the forum to believe that man is only an advanced animal of limited intelligence or that no human can be responsible for their cognitive activity or that cognitive activity cannot be learned or altered. Then I would expect posters to respond without intelligence.

Yes pushka I’m frustrated, I have assumed intelligence exists where apparently it does not.

If I am wrong about cognitive activity in humans – if I have assumed cognition where there is none in humans. Then point out my mistake, but no person has been kind enough to point out the error.

I have been told that children do not need a loving father and mother. I was told that primitive societies that prove children do not need a loving father and mother. I really do not see how someone can claim to be concerned about a child being spanked, then on the same forum say that it really does not matter that a child is loved by their father and mother.

I do not believe any of you care about children. I think you make excuses to try to feel good, and like the predators that molest children – you put on an appearance of someone that cares only for the opportunity to exploit them for your hidden agenda.

The Traveler

[pushka]

Nobody is saying that a child should not be cared for by his/her mother and father...some of us are only stating that in the absence of a loving father and mother relationship to the child, there are alternatives which will do the child no harm whatsoever, including being raised by homosexual partners...this is in spite of their behaviour being considered by you and some others as cognitive or not...how they treat the child they are raising is a whole different ball game to how they conduct themselves in the privacy of the bedroom.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Traveler@Mar 23 2005, 01:52 PM

I have been told that children do not need a loving father and mother. I was told that primitive societies that prove children do not need a loving father and mother. I really do not see how someone can claim to be concerned about a child being spanked, then on the same forum say that it really does not matter that a child is loved by their father and mother.

I do not believe any of you care about children. I think you make excuses to try to feel good, and like the predators that molest children – you put on an appearance of someone that cares only for the opportunity to exploit them for your hidden agenda.

I think that most of the people here (including myself) agree that the best family for a child to grow up in includes a mother and a father. However, there will never be enough homes like this for all children to grow up in one. That is when I think it is OK for homosexuals (a certain kind) to adopt.

I take great issue with your comment that none of us care about children. I think you are quite the self-righteous one. Why don't you go adopt a hundred or so of the children who are awaiting homes, so that you can make sure they have the correct upbringing? Or do you just not care enough to do that?

[apple]

I just read that "spare the rod spoil the child" is interpreted to mean spare the word of God spoild the child ( hold on to the golden rod)

puts different twist on the qoute