“Can you imagine professional societies opposing the two most effective medications for Covid-19? That is exactly what has happened with respect to actions for treating oppositional behaviour problems in young children.”
"Back-up spanking is effective because it is: non-abusive (not out-of-control due to anger); used specifically for defiance after milder tactics have already been tried; and used specifically with two- to six-year-olds."
Parents or any authoritarian must never lose control of their emotions. That can spell disaster.
This, of course, is part of for the course with the APA and any official statement they make. It’s motivated by politics, not a search for truth, and so they just cherry pick facts to meet their desired narrative.
Interesting discussion. I have no opinion about the merits and demerits of spanking. But "advice about parental discipline is getting better"? Nothing is getting better about the raising of children in the 'Liberal' West. One huge thing - the decline of the two parent family - is getting worse and worse and this tragedy DWARFS all other issues. Within such two parent families as do still exist, my guess is that things are about the same as they've always been (apart of course from the huge changes wrought by the smart phone).
> One huge thing - the decline of the two parent family - is getting worse and worse
It's entirely possible that this is related to the decline in spanking. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if people who were spoiled as kids are more likely to get divorced.
Issues in parenting are common because our society gives inappropriate rights to those who produce offspring. As soon as a new life is born into the world, its producers become: "parents" and are given control of almost, if not every aspect of that person's life. This happens regardless of what characteristics, temperament or skills they have or their ideology, misguided beliefs or psychological stability and appropriateness to care for and recognise their obligations to the life they have produced.
In a society which is increasingly materialist, entitled, populist and dumbed down, it is not surprising that common myths, logical fallacies and conditioned mind sets produce poor parenting.
The very nature of our society and its substantial lack of morality, appalling modelling by those who ought to provide the best examples and the increasing circulation of unfounded and often absurd conspiracy theories and manipulation of others for profit, has a profound effect on children as they grow and reach a development level at which they are capable of abstract thought and reasoning. Symptomatic of that effect, as well as a natural tendency of children to impetuosity, testing limits and exploration, is apparent rebellion, acting out and ever increasing level of mental disorder.
All of the above factors make for effective parenting to be difficult and even more-so for those unsuited to it when it happens for them.
The advocation of simplistic retrograde and harmful processes from those with little or no understanding of child development and/or ingrained and skewed notions about responsibility and confusion about the difference between symptoms and causation, let alone intent, do nothing positive towards improving either parenting or the behaviour of children or adults at any particular age or in whatever context.
Those who engage in spreading ill-conceived notions about parenting or childhood behaviours only make the situation worse and are very likely to increase the likelihood of their own children continuing that negative trend when they, in turn, have children of their own to parent.
Society does not 'give' rights: our rights are naturally endowed. This isn't a prison where our rights are privileges. You spout meaningless drivel about 'materialism' & the like to scare people into agreeing with you. Just because you put words together with some correlation does not make you right. '...in a society that is increasingly materialist, entitled, populist..." Do you even hear yourself?
> In a society which is increasingly materialist, entitled, populist and dumbed down, it is not surprising that common myths, logical fallacies and conditioned mind sets produce poor parenting.
This is true. For example, the mindset that the government should take over the duties of parents, or that contrary to nearly all parenting advice from all of history, one should not engage in spanking.
Regardless of your contrived justification for 'spanking', the reality remains that violence is to be abhorred and modelling it is inevitably detrimental.
No, I cannot support my statement with systematic reviews or meta-analyses but I strongly suspect that such is because appropriate studies are difficult to organise and probably haven't been done.
Another problem I have with this appalling 'advice' to those who care for children is that it gives no account of context or consequences in the short, medium or long term.
The article is a simplistic analysis, (if indeed that is not too generous an assessment), and is irresponsible for it reinforces the specious arguments of those who see 'might is right' and physical violence as appropriate behaviours. It also ignores the reality that those who bully, which is effectively what those who spank are doing, is quite likely to not only become a habitual reponse but an increasingly severe one.
Those who use pretensions of academic credibility do both research and themselves a disservice. Sadly, far too many lay-people will use such falacious information as evidence justifying their assault on children or whatever other conditioned or common prejudice to which they have become victim. As such, an article such as this is totally irresponsible.
'Spanking' or any physical assault of a child by an adult, parent or not, constitutes abuse. It *is* that simple.
> Regardless of your contrived justification for 'spanking', the reality remains that violence is to be abhorred and modelling it is inevitably detrimental.
This reads like modernist word salad.
> Another problem I have with this appalling 'advice' to those who care for children is that it gives no account of context or consequences in the short, medium or long term.
The burden of proof to provide an account of short, medium or long term consequences is on those who advocate abolishing a practice that has been standard for millennia.
From what you write, I can only assume that you consider abusing children to be a reasonable thing to do. That being the case, it suggests that it is unlikely that you have studied child development, psychology or behavour. Alternatively, (or additonally), it may be that you are unable, from conditioning or otherwise, to understand that norms are relative to both context and time; that they change; and that the do so primarily because of learning and new knowledge and understanding.
If you wish to live in denial of humanity's development, learning and understanding and posit that practices of previous times make them valid today, then there is little I can do to help you. However, please don't insult me for being compassionate, understanding what affects children and their development, understanding behaviours and their context and understanding the consequences of modelling and conditioning.
There is and never was any valid justification for physical or mental abuse of children. In the main, it has been a product of ignorance with, in some cases, a repetition of learned behaviours, i.e. a victim copying the behaviour that victimised them.
> From what you write, I can only assume that you consider abusing children to be a reasonable thing to do.
You appear to have no problem stretching the meaning of the phrase "abusing children" way past its breaking point.
> to understand that norms are relative to both context and time;
The norms I'm referring to have been universal in nearly all cultures.
> that the do so primarily because of learning and new knowledge and understanding.
Well in the grandparent you admitted that "[you] cannot support [your] statement with systematic reviews or meta-analyses but [you] strongly suspect that such is because appropriate studies are difficult to organise and probably haven't been done."
> If you wish to live in denial of humanity's development, learning and understanding and posit that practices of previous times make them valid today,
Like I said in the parent, the burden of proof is on you to show why they aren't. Did human nature somehow change during the past half century? If so it what way, and what was the cause?
> However, please don't insult me
There were no insults in my previous comment. However, the fact that you precise the pointing out of flaws in your argument as insults (while filling your own posts with outright Bulverism) shows that you probably deserve to be insulted.
> for being compassionate, understanding what affects children and their development, understanding behaviours and their context and understanding the consequences of modelling and conditioning.
So far you've shown no evidence of any understanding. (In fact, looking at your feed you don't seem to understand much of anything.) And yes, you do deserve to be insulted for spewing your nonsense.
Believe what you wish. Insult as you will. The world has many as foolish as you are, if what you write accurately reflects what you are. However, although it is highly unlikely, should I ever come across you and find you abusing children - as you seem to imply, falsely, is justified because someone else who preceded you did it - I will do all I can to stop you.
Now, please take your opinionated nonsense elsewhere. I have no time for child abusers.
Funny how for all your complaints about insults you really are only capable of arguing in insults yourself. Almost as if lack of proper discipline caused you to grow up to be a total narcissist.
Another false allegation. I have insulted no-one. Your posts, however, are full of them - as anyone reading this thread can see.
Given the character of what you've written I feel confident that your "lack of proper discipline" remark is reflective of a belief that confuses punishment coerced action with 'discipline'.
I think that any person with reasonable English language comprehension skills and who is objective will be able to determine whether my posts constitute an example of narcissism.
Should school be compulsory? Some children suffer continuously and horribly from bullying yet are forced to attend the place of torment. Some children kill themselves. This seems to me a far more serious problem than physical chastisement at home. The fact that parents are targeted before institutions is typical of our age.
Spanking is authoritarian parenting. Authoritarian parenting is destructive to the child. Call it overcontroling parenting or whatever else you want.
It stems from emotional immaturity of the parents who don't have patience and demand submission and obedience over acceptance. Basically the parents are having toddlers who are controlling because it is about their needs and no one else's.
It is the lazy parent's parenting style. It lacks love and leaves the children emotionally parenting themselves and their parenta. Every parent who practices it deserves the broken hearts that will come from it.
Discipline is not always authoritarian. It can be part of an authoritative style, which IIRC is the most popular and effective style. Children need discipline sometimes. You can’t always reason with a 3 year old.
Perhaps. However, I do not subscribe to the extreme genetic determinism of the Bio-Calvinists. The cultures of nations have change quite significantly over time periods far too short to be accounted for by genetic changes.
Discipline means to teach. Authoritarian is not teaching it is condutioning. There is no regard for the child in authoritarian parenting. If you think authoritative includes spanking you are painfully wrong. You should look up what discipline means. I have incredibly disciplined children who have never been hit, spanked, grounded etc. You are on he wrong side.
I wish you were smarter for your children's sake. I gave you the true meaning of the word. You can find today's ones but you are referencing the Bibles discipline which does not equate it to punishment.
The root word of discipline is “disciple,” which comes from the Latin word discipulus meaning “student.” Most people believe a disciple is a “follower” (probably because of the religious context), but in reality it means student—as in, “one who studies.”
Yet another simplistic attempt to justify the unjustifiable - assaulting children, i.e those who are weaker than yourself and essentially captives with little means of escape or extrication from an unwholesome situation that is likely to damage them for life.
'Punitive coercion' can certainly cause another to do what they don't wish to do. Even the very threat of it can do that, particularly when it has already actually occurred.
The real point, of course, is that because that individual now does what the one imposing the code prefers, does not mean that any appropriate learning has taken place or that the victim of the punishment believes any differently or acts any differently when free of the threat or actuality of punitive action. In fact, what such methods do is to increase the likelihood that the victim will become more likely to rebel when they consider it safe to do so or, not uncommonly, in fact, will rebel even when they know they are likely to be caught and punished.
The reality is that when children are developing, one of the most important requirements for their positive growth is the receipt of attention. Most parents understand this and attempt to give it in a caring way. Unfortunately, some don't. In many cases, the only affirmation a child may receive is when they do something that an adult considers to be 'wrong', 'disobedient', or whatever. The child, naturally needing and desiring attention will often then choose to behave in precisely the way that is likely to draw the ire of the parent and result in punishment. - You see, the fact is that the adult's punishment has actually become the child's *reward*, i.e. it has given them the attention they desire. Thus it is entirely counter-productive. Instead of achieving the behaviour the adult wants, it brings about what they don't want - so, being emotionally immature or simply ignorant and fooled by conditioning of others and false logic, - they then punish the child for a type of behaviour or act for which, essentially, the parent is responsible.
Rules and codes of behaviour can be useful if truly desirable and positive for social relationships and harmony. However, they can never be more than guides and adherence to them is dependent on circumstance, level of understanding, context and other factors. Ultimately, only the individual, relying on their own experience and level of comprehension and knowledge and their own conscience, can decide whether a rule or code is one that ought to be followed. The fact that someone else is in a position to demand 'obedience' does not necessarily correlate with what is required being appropriate. Indeed, 'civil disobedience' is not uncommon because there are many situations in which the powerful demand actions of the less powerful which are inequitable, unjust or harmful.
The fact is that 'discipline', which so many here like to use as though it were a panacea, cannot be enforced by might. 'Discipline', can only come from within and is a consequence of the will of someone seeking to further a particular outcome and thus, exercising self control or 'will-power'.
> The real point, of course, is that because that individual now does what the one imposing the code prefers, does not mean that any appropriate learning has taken place or that the victim of the punishment believes any differently or acts any differently when free of the threat or actuality of punitive action.
This is nonsense. In any case the same logic applies to "timeouts" or whatever negative, or even positive, reinforcement your preferred parenting method involves. Except that using weaker sticks inevitably makes the learning weaker.
> You see, the fact is that the adult's punishment has actually become the child's *reward*
As opposed to the "positive reinforcement" method where the child's reward for misbehavior is whatever actual reward the parent offers to bribe the child to stop.
> Ultimately, only the individual, relying on their own experience and level of comprehension and knowledge and their own conscience, can decide whether a rule or code is one that ought to be followed.
Um, no. It is impossible to learn enough in one lifetime to be able to make such a determination on one's own. Hence the need to rely on the wisdom of one's forefathers.
"'Punitive coercion' can certainly cause another to do what they don't wish to do. Even the very threat of it can do that, particularly when it has already actually occurred."
You do understand we are talking about spanking young children...right?
As a parent, you must see that no harm comes to your offspring. If your offspring wants to do something dangerous to their life, you must make them understand that they must not do that. If they are adamant, a spanking may save their life.
The same parent who will be aghast at the idea of spanking will have absolutely no qualms about putting their child on ADHD drugs like Ritalin.
A spank on the bottom (a well-padded place) causes momentary pain, and absolutely no long-term physical damage. Whereas a course of a methamphetamine like Ritalin can and does permanently damage the developing brain of a child.
Just an intuition, but I sense that there may be an unease/disgust reaction involved here. Spanking (or whatever word we use for the intentional administering of a surprise/shock/pain/humiliation reaction) just *seems* weird. And one of the reasons for that is the breakthrough of BDSM into mainstream sex talk, entertainment and practice.
Instinctively I can't separate the concept of actual 'disciplinary' physical intervention and playful 'discipline', in my own mind.
This may sound like a leap, but I have a hunch that many of us 'kinkier' adults appropriated spanking as a fun thing. So involving children now makes most of us balk.
So just maybe there's more to this than our instincts about society going 'soft' on bad behaviour for ideological reasons.
Please go away. I have done nothing that you've said. I am tired of your spurious allegations and will respect no adult who considers that hitting children is reasonable behaviour. It is not.
Yes, using a shock collar to train a dog is definitely abuse and there is much evidence that supports this. Links to a small example of what animal organisations and scientific studies report in relation to shock collar use are listed below:
Fundamentally, it is indisputable that positive reinforcement is far more effective and *not* harmful to the dog. Indeed, this is generally true in regard to behaviour change. Punitive measures may change behaviour but, effectively, they do so by bullying and the principle of 'might is right' - they punish behaviour with increasing severity until the victim obeys.
There are major issues with such methods, such as:
* Stress and fear induced in the animal
* Destruction of trust
* Permanent psychological effects
* Risk of permanent physical harm to the animal
* Perpetrator failure to consider alternative training means
* Inappropriate modelling to others
The reality is that: *There is no necessity for punitive & harmful or potentially harmful methods to be used for training an animal.* Indeed, such methods do not 'train', they simply intimidate by causing the animal to associate an unpleasant, (sometimes very harsh), association with a particular behaviour such that the try to avoid it. Aversive methods such as this have many flaws but a major one is that, although they may alter behaviour, they do nothing to promote investigation of underlying causes for the behaviour and so discovery of possible remedies.
I began training dogs in the 1950's. I have trained a great variety of breeds of dogs for general pet owners. I have also trained police and security dogs, including for the armed forces. Whilst once using a check chain, (the ubiquitous references to 'choke' chain are false and show a lack of understanding of correct application of this method), which was effective and in my experience never harmed or hurt any dog under my supervision, I have not used the method for several decades.
I had always used positive reinforcement as my main tool but hadn't considered that the check chain may be a contradiction to my belief that I care for and would never intentionally harm a dog, (or indeed any animal). I had always had strong bonding with animals I trained and never once had a dog I trained indicated any indication of physical or mental damage, indeed I had strong bonding with all dogs in my care. Howver, once I recognised how much inappropriate and harmful use of check chains was being caused by 'pet owners' and other, much of it inadvertently and through a lack of understanding of how to use it properly, I decided it was not appropriate to model such behaviour and so I stopped using it.
Having made that decision, it was relatively simple to discover positive, non-aversive, training methods and, in any case, I was already using them to a great degree in conjuction with check-chain use. In fact, the vast majority of my training did not involve use of the check chain in any way.
I now feel happier that I use no potentially risk prone methods and achieve certainly as good results as previously and probably even better ones.
Put simply - yes we can change behaviour by 'might is right', forceful control but surely no caring, compassionate and intelligent individual would choose to do so at any time, let alone when it is completely unnecessary to do so for there are kind, caring and positively supportive alternatives.
“Can you imagine professional societies opposing the two most effective medications for Covid-19? That is exactly what has happened with respect to actions for treating oppositional behaviour problems in young children.”
Why yes, yes I can.
Quite expecting those same professional societies to recommend sex changes for 3-year olds any moment.
Simply put, I think spanking is mostly not harmful. Context is everything though. It is certainly not a zero sum issue.
I was spanked occasionally by my parents from the ages of about 4-9..and I am grateful for it. It’s complex because each family is different.
Yes, context is everything.
"Back-up spanking is effective because it is: non-abusive (not out-of-control due to anger); used specifically for defiance after milder tactics have already been tried; and used specifically with two- to six-year-olds."
Parents or any authoritarian must never lose control of their emotions. That can spell disaster.
"Back-up spanking is effective because it is: non-abusive"
WRONG
It is abuse.
We disagree.
This isn't a mater of differences of opinion. Non sibi cunctis is simply wrong.
It is not complex. Adults hitting children is abuse. It is also unnecessary.
Asserting your BS doesn't make it true.
This, of course, is part of for the course with the APA and any official statement they make. It’s motivated by politics, not a search for truth, and so they just cherry pick facts to meet their desired narrative.
Interesting discussion. I have no opinion about the merits and demerits of spanking. But "advice about parental discipline is getting better"? Nothing is getting better about the raising of children in the 'Liberal' West. One huge thing - the decline of the two parent family - is getting worse and worse and this tragedy DWARFS all other issues. Within such two parent families as do still exist, my guess is that things are about the same as they've always been (apart of course from the huge changes wrought by the smart phone).
> One huge thing - the decline of the two parent family - is getting worse and worse
It's entirely possible that this is related to the decline in spanking. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if people who were spoiled as kids are more likely to get divorced.
Absolute rubbish with no foundation whatsoever.
It's much better supported than the BS you've been spewing all over this thread.
Issues in parenting are common because our society gives inappropriate rights to those who produce offspring. As soon as a new life is born into the world, its producers become: "parents" and are given control of almost, if not every aspect of that person's life. This happens regardless of what characteristics, temperament or skills they have or their ideology, misguided beliefs or psychological stability and appropriateness to care for and recognise their obligations to the life they have produced.
In a society which is increasingly materialist, entitled, populist and dumbed down, it is not surprising that common myths, logical fallacies and conditioned mind sets produce poor parenting.
The very nature of our society and its substantial lack of morality, appalling modelling by those who ought to provide the best examples and the increasing circulation of unfounded and often absurd conspiracy theories and manipulation of others for profit, has a profound effect on children as they grow and reach a development level at which they are capable of abstract thought and reasoning. Symptomatic of that effect, as well as a natural tendency of children to impetuosity, testing limits and exploration, is apparent rebellion, acting out and ever increasing level of mental disorder.
All of the above factors make for effective parenting to be difficult and even more-so for those unsuited to it when it happens for them.
The advocation of simplistic retrograde and harmful processes from those with little or no understanding of child development and/or ingrained and skewed notions about responsibility and confusion about the difference between symptoms and causation, let alone intent, do nothing positive towards improving either parenting or the behaviour of children or adults at any particular age or in whatever context.
Those who engage in spreading ill-conceived notions about parenting or childhood behaviours only make the situation worse and are very likely to increase the likelihood of their own children continuing that negative trend when they, in turn, have children of their own to parent.
It is sad.
Society does not 'give' rights: our rights are naturally endowed. This isn't a prison where our rights are privileges. You spout meaningless drivel about 'materialism' & the like to scare people into agreeing with you. Just because you put words together with some correlation does not make you right. '...in a society that is increasingly materialist, entitled, populist..." Do you even hear yourself?
> In a society which is increasingly materialist, entitled, populist and dumbed down, it is not surprising that common myths, logical fallacies and conditioned mind sets produce poor parenting.
This is true. For example, the mindset that the government should take over the duties of parents, or that contrary to nearly all parenting advice from all of history, one should not engage in spanking.
Finally, I was always suspicious of this narrative of spanking children always bad
Regardless of your contrived justification for 'spanking', the reality remains that violence is to be abhorred and modelling it is inevitably detrimental.
No, I cannot support my statement with systematic reviews or meta-analyses but I strongly suspect that such is because appropriate studies are difficult to organise and probably haven't been done.
Another problem I have with this appalling 'advice' to those who care for children is that it gives no account of context or consequences in the short, medium or long term.
The article is a simplistic analysis, (if indeed that is not too generous an assessment), and is irresponsible for it reinforces the specious arguments of those who see 'might is right' and physical violence as appropriate behaviours. It also ignores the reality that those who bully, which is effectively what those who spank are doing, is quite likely to not only become a habitual reponse but an increasingly severe one.
Those who use pretensions of academic credibility do both research and themselves a disservice. Sadly, far too many lay-people will use such falacious information as evidence justifying their assault on children or whatever other conditioned or common prejudice to which they have become victim. As such, an article such as this is totally irresponsible.
'Spanking' or any physical assault of a child by an adult, parent or not, constitutes abuse. It *is* that simple.
> Regardless of your contrived justification for 'spanking', the reality remains that violence is to be abhorred and modelling it is inevitably detrimental.
This reads like modernist word salad.
> Another problem I have with this appalling 'advice' to those who care for children is that it gives no account of context or consequences in the short, medium or long term.
The burden of proof to provide an account of short, medium or long term consequences is on those who advocate abolishing a practice that has been standard for millennia.
From what you write, I can only assume that you consider abusing children to be a reasonable thing to do. That being the case, it suggests that it is unlikely that you have studied child development, psychology or behavour. Alternatively, (or additonally), it may be that you are unable, from conditioning or otherwise, to understand that norms are relative to both context and time; that they change; and that the do so primarily because of learning and new knowledge and understanding.
If you wish to live in denial of humanity's development, learning and understanding and posit that practices of previous times make them valid today, then there is little I can do to help you. However, please don't insult me for being compassionate, understanding what affects children and their development, understanding behaviours and their context and understanding the consequences of modelling and conditioning.
There is and never was any valid justification for physical or mental abuse of children. In the main, it has been a product of ignorance with, in some cases, a repetition of learned behaviours, i.e. a victim copying the behaviour that victimised them.
> From what you write, I can only assume that you consider abusing children to be a reasonable thing to do.
You appear to have no problem stretching the meaning of the phrase "abusing children" way past its breaking point.
> to understand that norms are relative to both context and time;
The norms I'm referring to have been universal in nearly all cultures.
> that the do so primarily because of learning and new knowledge and understanding.
Well in the grandparent you admitted that "[you] cannot support [your] statement with systematic reviews or meta-analyses but [you] strongly suspect that such is because appropriate studies are difficult to organise and probably haven't been done."
> If you wish to live in denial of humanity's development, learning and understanding and posit that practices of previous times make them valid today,
Like I said in the parent, the burden of proof is on you to show why they aren't. Did human nature somehow change during the past half century? If so it what way, and what was the cause?
> However, please don't insult me
There were no insults in my previous comment. However, the fact that you precise the pointing out of flaws in your argument as insults (while filling your own posts with outright Bulverism) shows that you probably deserve to be insulted.
> for being compassionate, understanding what affects children and their development, understanding behaviours and their context and understanding the consequences of modelling and conditioning.
So far you've shown no evidence of any understanding. (In fact, looking at your feed you don't seem to understand much of anything.) And yes, you do deserve to be insulted for spewing your nonsense.
Believe what you wish. Insult as you will. The world has many as foolish as you are, if what you write accurately reflects what you are. However, although it is highly unlikely, should I ever come across you and find you abusing children - as you seem to imply, falsely, is justified because someone else who preceded you did it - I will do all I can to stop you.
Now, please take your opinionated nonsense elsewhere. I have no time for child abusers.
Funny how for all your complaints about insults you really are only capable of arguing in insults yourself. Almost as if lack of proper discipline caused you to grow up to be a total narcissist.
Another false allegation. I have insulted no-one. Your posts, however, are full of them - as anyone reading this thread can see.
Given the character of what you've written I feel confident that your "lack of proper discipline" remark is reflective of a belief that confuses punishment coerced action with 'discipline'.
I think that any person with reasonable English language comprehension skills and who is objective will be able to determine whether my posts constitute an example of narcissism.
Is using a shock collar to train a dog animal abuse?
Parents who let their child abuse others or get themselves into dangerous situations because they hate the idea of spanking are failing their child.
Should school be compulsory? Some children suffer continuously and horribly from bullying yet are forced to attend the place of torment. Some children kill themselves. This seems to me a far more serious problem than physical chastisement at home. The fact that parents are targeted before institutions is typical of our age.
You people are missing the point
Spanking is authoritarian parenting. Authoritarian parenting is destructive to the child. Call it overcontroling parenting or whatever else you want.
It stems from emotional immaturity of the parents who don't have patience and demand submission and obedience over acceptance. Basically the parents are having toddlers who are controlling because it is about their needs and no one else's.
It is the lazy parent's parenting style. It lacks love and leaves the children emotionally parenting themselves and their parenta. Every parent who practices it deserves the broken hearts that will come from it.
Discipline is not always authoritarian. It can be part of an authoritative style, which IIRC is the most popular and effective style. Children need discipline sometimes. You can’t always reason with a 3 year old.
Quite possible had Lillian been properly disciplined as a child, she wouldn't be writing this kind of nonsense.
Edit: Looking at her feed, and wow is she a narcissist.
I think she has a genetic problem.
Perhaps. However, I do not subscribe to the extreme genetic determinism of the Bio-Calvinists. The cultures of nations have change quite significantly over time periods far too short to be accounted for by genetic changes.
I am talking about her trait as a narcissist...not the culture of nations.
Culture is ultimately made up of the traits of the individuals in it.
Discipline means to teach. Authoritarian is not teaching it is condutioning. There is no regard for the child in authoritarian parenting. If you think authoritative includes spanking you are painfully wrong. You should look up what discipline means. I have incredibly disciplined children who have never been hit, spanked, grounded etc. You are on he wrong side.
Try this definition of discipline: the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.
I wish you were smarter for your children's sake. I gave you the true meaning of the word. You can find today's ones but you are referencing the Bibles discipline which does not equate it to punishment.
"I wish you were smarter for your children's sake."
I wish you were smarter for your sake.
That definition came from the Google Dictionary.
The root word of discipline is “disciple,” which comes from the Latin word discipulus meaning “student.” Most people believe a disciple is a “follower” (probably because of the religious context), but in reality it means student—as in, “one who studies.”
Yet another simplistic attempt to justify the unjustifiable - assaulting children, i.e those who are weaker than yourself and essentially captives with little means of escape or extrication from an unwholesome situation that is likely to damage them for life.
'Punitive coercion' can certainly cause another to do what they don't wish to do. Even the very threat of it can do that, particularly when it has already actually occurred.
The real point, of course, is that because that individual now does what the one imposing the code prefers, does not mean that any appropriate learning has taken place or that the victim of the punishment believes any differently or acts any differently when free of the threat or actuality of punitive action. In fact, what such methods do is to increase the likelihood that the victim will become more likely to rebel when they consider it safe to do so or, not uncommonly, in fact, will rebel even when they know they are likely to be caught and punished.
The reality is that when children are developing, one of the most important requirements for their positive growth is the receipt of attention. Most parents understand this and attempt to give it in a caring way. Unfortunately, some don't. In many cases, the only affirmation a child may receive is when they do something that an adult considers to be 'wrong', 'disobedient', or whatever. The child, naturally needing and desiring attention will often then choose to behave in precisely the way that is likely to draw the ire of the parent and result in punishment. - You see, the fact is that the adult's punishment has actually become the child's *reward*, i.e. it has given them the attention they desire. Thus it is entirely counter-productive. Instead of achieving the behaviour the adult wants, it brings about what they don't want - so, being emotionally immature or simply ignorant and fooled by conditioning of others and false logic, - they then punish the child for a type of behaviour or act for which, essentially, the parent is responsible.
Rules and codes of behaviour can be useful if truly desirable and positive for social relationships and harmony. However, they can never be more than guides and adherence to them is dependent on circumstance, level of understanding, context and other factors. Ultimately, only the individual, relying on their own experience and level of comprehension and knowledge and their own conscience, can decide whether a rule or code is one that ought to be followed. The fact that someone else is in a position to demand 'obedience' does not necessarily correlate with what is required being appropriate. Indeed, 'civil disobedience' is not uncommon because there are many situations in which the powerful demand actions of the less powerful which are inequitable, unjust or harmful.
The fact is that 'discipline', which so many here like to use as though it were a panacea, cannot be enforced by might. 'Discipline', can only come from within and is a consequence of the will of someone seeking to further a particular outcome and thus, exercising self control or 'will-power'.
> The real point, of course, is that because that individual now does what the one imposing the code prefers, does not mean that any appropriate learning has taken place or that the victim of the punishment believes any differently or acts any differently when free of the threat or actuality of punitive action.
This is nonsense. In any case the same logic applies to "timeouts" or whatever negative, or even positive, reinforcement your preferred parenting method involves. Except that using weaker sticks inevitably makes the learning weaker.
> You see, the fact is that the adult's punishment has actually become the child's *reward*
As opposed to the "positive reinforcement" method where the child's reward for misbehavior is whatever actual reward the parent offers to bribe the child to stop.
> Ultimately, only the individual, relying on their own experience and level of comprehension and knowledge and their own conscience, can decide whether a rule or code is one that ought to be followed.
Um, no. It is impossible to learn enough in one lifetime to be able to make such a determination on one's own. Hence the need to rely on the wisdom of one's forefathers.
"'Punitive coercion' can certainly cause another to do what they don't wish to do. Even the very threat of it can do that, particularly when it has already actually occurred."
You do understand we are talking about spanking young children...right?
As a parent, you must see that no harm comes to your offspring. If your offspring wants to do something dangerous to their life, you must make them understand that they must not do that. If they are adamant, a spanking may save their life.
Do you have anything to look at that backs this up?
Yes. Precisely. Thank you for having the courage to speak out against the pervasive ignorance that causes so much harm.
Here's what I can't figure out.
The same parent who will be aghast at the idea of spanking will have absolutely no qualms about putting their child on ADHD drugs like Ritalin.
A spank on the bottom (a well-padded place) causes momentary pain, and absolutely no long-term physical damage. Whereas a course of a methamphetamine like Ritalin can and does permanently damage the developing brain of a child.
I know what I'd prefer for myself.
What about animals?
Just an intuition, but I sense that there may be an unease/disgust reaction involved here. Spanking (or whatever word we use for the intentional administering of a surprise/shock/pain/humiliation reaction) just *seems* weird. And one of the reasons for that is the breakthrough of BDSM into mainstream sex talk, entertainment and practice.
Instinctively I can't separate the concept of actual 'disciplinary' physical intervention and playful 'discipline', in my own mind.
This may sound like a leap, but I have a hunch that many of us 'kinkier' adults appropriated spanking as a fun thing. So involving children now makes most of us balk.
So just maybe there's more to this than our instincts about society going 'soft' on bad behaviour for ideological reasons.
> Instinctively I can't separate the concept of actual 'disciplinary' physical intervention and playful 'discipline', in my own mind.
Sounds like a "you" problem.
> So just maybe there's more to this than our instincts about society going 'soft' on bad behaviour for ideological reasons.
Specifically, there's also the hijacking of important social tools by you perverts or use as sex toys.
Please go away. I have done nothing that you've said. I am tired of your spurious allegations and will respect no adult who considers that hitting children is reasonable behaviour. It is not.
"I am tired of your spurious allegations and will respect no adult who considers that hitting children is reasonable behaviour. "
That is unfortunate as I live for your respect.
> I have done nothing that you've said.
Did you intentionally break the comment chain so other observers can't see quite as easily how blatantly you're lying?
Yes, using a shock collar to train a dog is definitely abuse and there is much evidence that supports this. Links to a small example of what animal organisations and scientific studies report in relation to shock collar use are listed below:
* https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-animal-welfare-issues-with-electric-shock-collars-on-dogs/
* https://spca.bc.ca/ways-to-help/take-action/animals-in-the-home/the-shocking-truth-about-electronic-collars/5-reasons-not-to-use-a-shock-collar/
* https://positively.com/dog-training/methods-equipment/training-equipment/shock-collars/
* https://www.vetvoice.com.au/articles/shock-horror-electric-shock-collars/
* http://www.kristibenson.com/blog/2019/12/3/a-list-of-things-that-shock-collars-are-not
* https://www.jonesanimalbehavior.com/post/what-does-science-say-about-shock
* https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00508/full
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159106003820
There are many more.
Fundamentally, it is indisputable that positive reinforcement is far more effective and *not* harmful to the dog. Indeed, this is generally true in regard to behaviour change. Punitive measures may change behaviour but, effectively, they do so by bullying and the principle of 'might is right' - they punish behaviour with increasing severity until the victim obeys.
There are major issues with such methods, such as:
* Stress and fear induced in the animal
* Destruction of trust
* Permanent psychological effects
* Risk of permanent physical harm to the animal
* Perpetrator failure to consider alternative training means
* Inappropriate modelling to others
The reality is that: *There is no necessity for punitive & harmful or potentially harmful methods to be used for training an animal.* Indeed, such methods do not 'train', they simply intimidate by causing the animal to associate an unpleasant, (sometimes very harsh), association with a particular behaviour such that the try to avoid it. Aversive methods such as this have many flaws but a major one is that, although they may alter behaviour, they do nothing to promote investigation of underlying causes for the behaviour and so discovery of possible remedies.
I began training dogs in the 1950's. I have trained a great variety of breeds of dogs for general pet owners. I have also trained police and security dogs, including for the armed forces. Whilst once using a check chain, (the ubiquitous references to 'choke' chain are false and show a lack of understanding of correct application of this method), which was effective and in my experience never harmed or hurt any dog under my supervision, I have not used the method for several decades.
I had always used positive reinforcement as my main tool but hadn't considered that the check chain may be a contradiction to my belief that I care for and would never intentionally harm a dog, (or indeed any animal). I had always had strong bonding with animals I trained and never once had a dog I trained indicated any indication of physical or mental damage, indeed I had strong bonding with all dogs in my care. Howver, once I recognised how much inappropriate and harmful use of check chains was being caused by 'pet owners' and other, much of it inadvertently and through a lack of understanding of how to use it properly, I decided it was not appropriate to model such behaviour and so I stopped using it.
Having made that decision, it was relatively simple to discover positive, non-aversive, training methods and, in any case, I was already using them to a great degree in conjuction with check-chain use. In fact, the vast majority of my training did not involve use of the check chain in any way.
I now feel happier that I use no potentially risk prone methods and achieve certainly as good results as previously and probably even better ones.
Put simply - yes we can change behaviour by 'might is right', forceful control but surely no caring, compassionate and intelligent individual would choose to do so at any time, let alone when it is completely unnecessary to do so for there are kind, caring and positively supportive alternatives.
Take care. Stay safe. ☮️