• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Spanking Children

1069 said:
My son went through it less than a year ago, at one of the bases that has a reputation of being the toughest to do BCT at.
Evidently you haven't been through BCT, at least not lately, because drill instructors haven't been legally allowed to hit recruits for several decades now.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, and go ahead, try to press assault charges against a DI. BTW I went through Basic in 1988. My step-brother also survived Catholic school and all of it's routine "beatings" by those nuns, LOL.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
None. :2razz:



I hope you didn't expect a different answer from me.
Click to expand...

I didn't. I was setting you up... to the other two, thank you for answering, but my point was that "deserve" a spanking is meaningless unless you qualify the statement. You guys did, but in his initial comment, he did not... but that is IT for you. ;)
 
FluffyNinja said:
Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, and go ahead, try to press assault charges against a DI. BTW I went through Basic in 1988. My step-brother also survived Catholic school and all of it's routine "beatings" by those nuns, LOL.
Click to expand...

I went to catholic school for all my school years.
Children were not beaten.
Recruits certainly have legal recourse if beaten by their superior officers.
 
I was going to post my usual dissertation on child-rearing... but this thread is so far gone it's probably far too late to say anything useful.
 
1069 said:
I went to catholic school for all my school years.
Children were not beaten.
Recruits certainly have legal recourse if beaten by their superior officers.
Click to expand...
You must have had the nice nuns :mrgreen: And, BTW, you originally said "stricken". Now it's "beaten." Please quantify the difference. Can an individual be "stricken" without being "beaten"? Before you answer please take into consideration that Corporal Punishment is still legally acceptable in the public school systems of many states (including mine) ....with parental consent, of course.
 
FluffyNinja said:
You must have had the nice nuns :mrgreen: And, BTW, you originally said "stricken". Now it's "beaten." Please quantify the difference. Can an individual be "stricken" without being "beaten"? Before you answer please take into consideration that Corporal Punishment is still legally acceptable in the public school systems of many states (including mine) ....with parental consent, of course.
Click to expand...

"Beaten" was your word. You put it in quotations, in your statement about nuns.
Stricken, beaten, it's all the same to me.
Both mean physically hit.
"Beaten" has worse connotations, perhaps, as it implies (but does not definitively mean) multiple blows, while "stricken" implies one (if there's more than one, we say "repeatedly stricken").
 
1069 said:
"Beaten" was your word. You put it in quotations, in your statement about nuns.
Stricken, beaten, it's all the same to me.
Both mean physically hit.
"Beaten" has worse connotations, perhaps, as it implies (but does not definitively mean) multiple blows, while "stricken" implies one (if there's more than one, we say "repeatedly stricken").
Click to expand...
I was referring to your reply that recruits "beaten" by superior officers have legal recourse. I hope we can safely assume that military recruits qualify as "adults". If so, let us proceed........ Originally you said "stricken" (referring to adults)
Adults are not physically stricken, no matter what they do.
Click to expand...
later you say
Recruits certainly have legal recourse if beaten by their superior officers.
Click to expand...
I was simply wondering if there was a distinction in your view.
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
I was referring to your reply that recruits "beaten" by superior officers have legal recourse. I hope we can safely assume that military recruits qualify as "adults". If so, let us proceed........ Originally you said "stricken" (referring to adults)

later you say
I was simply wondering if there was a distinction in your view.
Click to expand...

No difference in my view (as explained above).
I think that the act of physically striking another human being- of any age- for any reason other than self-defense should be illegal.
Society mostly agrees, as it is illegal to physically strike anyone over the age of eighteen for any reason other than self-defense.
I see the fact that children are not protected by this law to be a disparity.
 
Last edited:
In all seriousness, while I support spanking in some instances, I do believe that it:
(1) Should not be used in anger and,
(2) Legal action should be taken if it goes too far and,
(3) Not all children require spanking to be disciplined.
 
Goshin said:
I was going to post my usual dissertation on child-rearing... but this thread is so far gone it's probably far too late to say anything useful.
Click to expand...

Yep- no use in beating a dead horse.;)
 
Should beating the proverbial "Dead Horse" be punishable by law? Or should we just spank him? :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is one opinion. I know that, when I almost jumped out in front of a car in the street as a kid, and my dad grabbed me back and gave me a swat on the butt and yelled at me to look before crossing, I remembered that... i learned from that, and so when my daughter did the same thing, I did the same as my father did. We also talked about it later, and I teach them about what to do prior to crossing a street, but kids still react without thinking a lot, and the use of a spank does just as well now as in the 50's.
Click to expand...

So you said in your prior post that you should never spank in anger. Did your father and you spank in anger in those circumstances? I can't imagine you spanked calmly in that circumstance. My screaming when my son did that because I was so scared was enough to scare the crap out of him. No spanking was necessary.

I just re-read your two posts. You said you never had spanked your girls, and then you said you spanked at least one of your daughters in the above circumstance. Strange.
 
Last edited:
Toothpicvic said:
Anything that could actually endager the kid's safety. Such as if my kid ran in the middle of the street - I'd spank my kid for that. Something like stealing a cookie? No. Using spanking as your only form of punishment doesn't teach kids any real values or morals - it just teaches them to behave as long as your in the same room as them.
Click to expand...

So when their safety is in danger, and you're afraid they will get physically hurt, you'll physically hurt your child to teach them how not to get physically hurt? That sounds productive.
 
FluffyNinja said:
In all seriousness, while I support spanking in some instances, I do believe that it:
(1) Should not be used in anger and,
(2) Legal action should be taken if it goes too far and,
(3) Not all children require spanking to be disciplined.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to me for a parent to spank and have it not be used in anger. Oh, it's okay to hit your kid as long as you're not angry when you do it? That's nuciking futs.
 
aps said:
It makes no sense to me for a parent to spank and have it not be used in anger. Oh, it's okay to hit your kid as long as you're not angry when you do it? That's nuciking futs.
Click to expand...
I don't hit, I spank; only when I've determined other forms of discipline don't work and only after I've explained to my child what the spanking is for and certainly not with anger. My overall goal here is to discourage a certain type of behavior, not to scare the crap out of a child, nor to do lasting physical injury. This type of discipline can be used in a fair, logical and effective way without being abusive. Maybe this is just beyond your comprehension????
 
FluffyNinja said:
I don't hit, I spank; only when I've determined other forms of discipline don't work and only after I've explained to my child what the spanking is for and certainly not with anger. My overall goal here is to discourage a certain type of behavior, not to scare the crap out of a child, nor to do lasting physical injury. This type of discipline can be used in a fair, logical and effective way without being abusive. Maybe this is just beyond your comprehension????
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's beyond my comprehension. *rolls eyes* Hey, this is your children. You do what you want. I couldn't care less. Have a nice day.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Parents don't get angry when their children misbehave?
Click to expand...

My 2nd son presented years of trouble. For a while, at first, I became outraged and lashed out - unacceptably so. I had to learn how to cap my anger and frustration with him. After a while those same things wouldn't make me so much 'angry' as it would hurt or dispoint me. Without the anger being so brazen and uncontrollable I could then punish according to 'right and wrong' and not just according to how I felt about it. . . and that seemed to be far more effective.
When Mom and Dad just yell and scream over everything the kids just tune it all out and nothing sinks in. . . which is exactly how there are countless families who seem on teh brink of distruction without any respect or control over things.

When I was a kid my Mom was unhinged all the time, yelling at us and calling us bitches (I have 2 sisters) - so coming from her it was routine and meaningless. However, my Dad always had control over his temper - always. My Mom use to spank us all the time but my Dad hardly ever did so - and so when he *did* get really upset with us and punish us it was painful. Not physically - he didn't even have to spank us (I remember my Dad only spanking me only one time). But emotionally hurtful - and that was extremely hard to handle, almost like your best friend telling you that he hates you.

You could look at things in the opposite light: every time you're angry with someone are you suppose to punish them even if they've actually done nothing wrong?

My kids push my buttons all the time - doesn't mean they need to be punished for it. . . doesn't mean they've actually done something wrong. It means that I've just been pissed off. When you learn to separate your anger from your punishment and from your routine handling of issues things become much easier.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
My 2nd son presented years of trouble. For a while, at first, I became outraged and lashed out - unacceptably so. I had to learn how to cap my anger and frustration with him. After a while those same things wouldn't make me so much 'angry' as it would hurt or dispoint me. Without the anger being so brazen and uncontrollable I could then punish according to 'right and wrong' and not just according to how I felt about it. . . and that seemed to be far more effective.
When Mom and Dad just yell and scream over everything the kids just tune it all out and nothing sinks in. . . which is exactly how there are countless families who seem on teh brink of distruction without any respect or control over things.

When I was a kid my Mom was unhinged all the time, yelling at us and calling us bitches (I have 2 sisters) - so coming from her it was routine and meaningless. However, my Dad always had control over his temper - always. My Mom use to spank us all the time but my Dad hardly ever did so - and so when he *did* get really upset with us and punish us it was painful. Not physically - he didn't even have to spank us (I remember my Dad only spanking me only one time). But emotionally hurtful - and that was extremely hard to handle, almost like your best friend telling you that he hates you.

You could look at things in the opposite light: every time you're angry with someone are you suppose to punish them even if they've actually done nothing wrong?

My kids push my buttons all the time - doesn't mean they need to be punished for it. . . doesn't mean they've actually done something wrong. It means that I've just been pissed off. When you learn to separate your anger from your punishment and from your routine handling of issues things become much easier.
Click to expand...

Yelling has the same effect if it is used rarely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom