http://www.examiner.com/article/another-couple-found-guilty-of-murder-for-parenting-by-to-train-up-a-child

http://whynottrainachild.com/2010/04/20/quotes-from-ttuac/

So yea... let's talk about parenting.

EDIT:

This is some demented crap.

Yeah that is pretty demented. I was spanked when I misbehaved growing up. It didn't happen very often (only when I repeatedly and wilfully disobeyed) and I don't really see a problem with that. I don't think children shouldn't be physically punished for accidents or even for not listening the first time they are told to do something.

What this book advocates is kind of mental though. Whipping your children to keep them laying down? Starving them, beating them with PVC tubing ... WTF?

Of course I'm not a parent so what do I know?

My brother and I were spanked as children. I consider that acceptable discipline. I distinctly remember when I was about 8 years old my mother had just spanked us for talking and generally making noise instead of going to bed. Being in a goofy state of mind I began laughing as she walked away and she called me on it. I don't remember what she said, but my reply was, "<arrogant laugh>, that didn't hurt."

Her response was something along the lines of, "Do you want me to send your father up here?!"

"NOOOOOOOO!!!!11"

Which I think is a lot better than a 3 year old telling his mother to, "fuck off," in Walmart, and her threatening, "You're going to get a time-out!", but that's just me. I've seen time-out in practice (by a child-care professional) and it does not work.

Of course, there's a line between discipline and abuse. If the parent is angry they need to regain their composure first. You can't discipline when you're angry, just like you can't drive angry. In any case, I think that the old adage, "this hurts me more than it hurts you," is probably a good measure of whether you're abusing or disciplining your child. Of course, I'm not a parent, and as the child gets older (especially boys) they will likely be able to take more so it's hard to say whether it needs to hurt them more or not. I suppose the punishment should equal the crime.

I have spanked my nephew once or twice (with my brother's encouragement). He was only 1 1/2 and from his reaction (and his father's) I never got through the diaper. It seems like his parents have since lost the stomach for it though because now they just futilely yell at him (like idiot dog owners that think the individual should understand them when he clearly doesn't), which I think is a shame. In general, I don't consider them the sharpest tools in the shed, but I respect their right as parents. They started out smart... I suspect that the mother (who probably was never spanked herself) is the cause for the sudden change.

In any case, I don't know that I want that responsibility. Especially in this feminized society. I would hope that there is training available for parents that are uncomfortable with spanking for discipline, but in this feminized society we live in there probably isn't... It is practically taboo. Fuuuuck. Which I guess sets the stage up perfectly for freak shows like the OP.

The parents of the OP should be made an example of. I don't care how short their school bus was.

The most important part in child raising I've heard is consistency. If the kid hasn't had that, nothing will work for quite a while till they learn their new boundaries.

When the consequences for your actions are a minute of boredom you can get away with a lot. You underestimate how big of an asshole a 5 year old boy can be. They're not dumb, and they're not all that harmless. I've seen it first hand. They do not respond to threats of time-out. It's basically not a punishment. You threaten them with time-out and they will blatantly act-out in front of you. Basically, "so what, go ahead!" If they've been spanked before and you threaten to spank them it's, "NOOOOOOOOO, PLEASE, SORRY, SORRY, SORRY!"

This reminds me of when we used to get left with babysitters for a couple of hours before my mom got off of work. Oh the lulz. Locking them out of the house, trying to get away with anything we could. We were boys. They were predominantly teenage girls. They had no hope of controlling us.

Thing is, you actually have to back it up. and 2 minutes is nothing. Try 2 hours.

You sound like you were a complete dick as a kid...

Making your child sit in a corner for two hours seems like child abuse to me.

When they get old, they will think that all conflicts are resolved by stealing the other person's iGadget and pointing to a corner. Do you want to raise your child to be a thief?

Do you have any idea how long 2 hours is to a 5 year old? That's not discipline. That's "quiet time for mommy." The child cannot associate that time with discipline. That is basically child abuse IMO. It's like with pet owners. If you don't catch them in the act (or they already have it instilled that what they did was wrong and punishment is coming) then you will accomplish nothing regardless of what punishment you give them. The punishment is not associated with the crime in their mind. And if the punishment is not associated with the crime then it doesn't matter what you do to them. It's equivalent with no consequences, with an optional sprinkle of parental selfishness or abuse on top.

I was a child. A boy. Seriously, what do you expect?

I really don't get how you think. Doesn't make sense to me.

We used to get caned and strapped in primary school when I was a child. It didn't stop us from doing things we knew we weren't supposed to though, it just helped us learn how to not get caught.

That seems like a contradiction to me. It seems clear that it made you control your behavior somewhat. You had to take special care to not get caught (and if you were anything like me you failed several times in your attempts). I think that in itself teaches you several crucial things about life. If you're even capable of doing things that you aren't supposed to (and obviously it is possible, though there is a limit to what extent) then the punishment is irrelevant because you don't receive it. You know that if you are caught you will receive a punishment that you definitely don't want. That is a significant improvement over a punishment that doesn't even phase you. We got away with a bunch of stuff that our parents didn't know about. Some of it we told them now that we're grown. It's usually a crap shoot between laughter and disgust. I think they're pretty satisfied with their efforts though. Not perfect, but who is? Perhaps a little bit of "getting away with it" is even necessary. I think it's pretty natural.

Append:

I suppose I should note that there is a difference between parents/guardians disciplining you compared with teachers/strangers. For one thing, I imagine it would be hard for a teacher to be "professional" (for lack of a better word) about it. Kids and adolescents can be extremely frustrating. I don't think that it's really their responsibility to deal that discipline. At the same time, I think it's a shame that 99% of parents don't seem to do their job (at least, these days... I imagine it wasn't as bad 20, 30, or 40 years ago...)... Also, even if you do agree with what the teachers did, it would have a negligible effect if the parents/guardians at home didn't follow through.

I should NOT read this thread and I won't do it further.

But a coomment on that demented shit: furinkan used too gentle terms....how on earth such a book could actually be available to the general public? How on earth would you think of punishing a 4 months old baby?

Nonsense, decades of child rights fighting thrown away...

Damn, there are things written in this very thread that make me sweat cold.

A parent who hits their child simply does so because they know of no better alternative. Its the easy way out.

I don't find it acceptable. Ever. Not in any form. You are hitting a defenseless child who puts his entire trust in you. He trusts you to tell/show him what he is doing wrong. You can do that the right way or the spank way.

Some parents are such nitwits that they punish their child for behavior they created... Just makes me go red with rage.

As for that link, the above I think for normal "spanking", what is stated there is monstrous.

I am not a parent, but I do get scientific studies popping up in my news feeds and one that came up earlier this year is that it's now scientifically proven that hitting a child in any way, even just a handful of times in their early years, is enough to cause major learning and behavioural problems for them in their future.

And yet, even when faced with this evidence, the vast majority of parents still believe spanking a child is perfectly OK, to say nothing of what that "To Train up a Child" book advocates.

Abusing children (physically or psychologically) is never acceptable and will only serve to frighten it, it will never teach it values or respect. Thankfully, all forms of violence against children are illegal in Sweden.

That book is truly disgusting, and the fact that it's for sale on sites like amazon makes me lose hope in humanity. But of course it's the parents fault in the end - no book can force you to abuse your children (though that and a good dose of religious zeal will help).

Here's a petition aimed at Amazon regarding this (and other similar books) btw; http://www.change.org/petitions/amazon-refuse-to-carry-books-which-advocate-the-physical-abuse-of-children

I'm sure it's not a solution, or if it will even do anything, but I signed it anyway (it's quite literally the least one can do).

I think all discipline is child abuse.

Taking away that toy can be so traumatic. Scientist said so.

Oh boy that really makes me mad.

Wanting your children to be tough is one thing, but doesnt the person themselves have to achieve it with their own power? You can't force someone to be strong.

"blanket training, where 6month old is hit when they try to crawl off a blanket on the floor" how is that meant to make a child tough? That make them weak and submissive and obedient (aka degenerate).

Oh man so angry right now.

Yeah.. None of that book is about making the kid "tough". It's about making your very own harry potter minus the magic part.

Beating your child is not at all the easy way out, not in the long run.
It's short sighted and very high maintenance to keep that up, and it's no fun unless you're a sadist.

Being kind and reasoning with your child is fun for both parent and child and the lessons are learnt quicker.

Its not even the beating or not beating. That's a debate that would last forever.

I'm appalled at this...

They advocate beating your child as an infant and saying "No" over and over just to teach your child early on that "No" is a word to be feared.

In another quote, they say that if they resist, you tell them you are going to whip them, and then they clean up their act and do as they are told: beat them anyway. Do not tolerate any resistance (even though this teaches them that they will get beaten for doing as they are told). The way I would (and did) react to situations like these was to be more of an ass. I was going to get beat and bitched at regardless, so fuck it. Kids are not stupid.

If they resist spanking you are supposed to beat them until they don't even flinch any more.

They also advocate starving your children for days at a time (which can cause or exasperate health problems). Hosing them down in the yard and leaving them out there (naked) to dry. In some weather, this could (and did) kill a child.

These people are clearly demented, and I'm sad to say they are American.

There's the opposite side, too.

http://youngcons.com/radical-parenting-advice-from-matt-walsh-hold-you-kids-responsible-for-their-behavior/

I think we are clearly designed to learn from pain. Even if parents never give spankings, the environment clearly does, whether it's touching something hot, falling on something hard, or being stung by something.

However, I think this only really applies after a certain age. I think we're wired to treat a baby with nothing but care, love, affection and patience, and anything else in the early years will cause serious harm. I think any normal person would be instinctively horrified to see a baby being smacked.

So, I think spankings are fine as long as they are not given in anger and they don't risk harming the child, and they only happen when the child is old enough to be concious of their own wrong-doing.

I think I had about 5 proper spankings in my childhood. They were for being really really bad. (e.g. smashing up my first computer a few days after receiving it as birthday present because I was curious about what was inside). I remember them not hurting very much, but crying anyway out of guilt and for the benefit of my dad who didn't have the heart to hit me very hard.

My brothers and I were forever injuring ourselves as kids (I had stitches in my head on 4 separate occasions), breaking limbs, having "stick fights" that ended in serious bruises, getting stung by bees and wasps, bitten by snakes and scorpions, shot by air-guns and sling-shots, burnt by fireworks, petrol bombs and "chlorine" bombs. We had a real childhood, so a few spankings were never an issue.

I don't think that's the opposite side of anything that's been talked about in this thread

What that page talks about is pretty sane and level headed. I mean OMG consequences?

My dad did have the heart to do it. He had these heavy leather belts. Folded them up a couple times and went to town. I don't think he did it hard enough to give us a long term bruise, but it sure hurt like hell.

Jesus fucking christ man. How do you think that affected your relationship with your parents once you were grown up? I've never been hit by my parents - if I had, I would probably have a fair amount of resentment against them even now.

I was scared of him for quite a while.

There's more than just that that could have caused resentment. But to be honest, I don't remember a lot of my early childhood. So I suppose that's a good thing?

I dunno, as I grew up, I realized a lot of things about him, and why he did the things he did. Doesn't make it any better, but I don't hate him or anything.

Actually, what I hate the most, is how he gave up near the end. Mix between diabetes and heart problems, and he just totally gives up on his diet. Ugh.

Though, I suppose if I wanted to dwell on things, I could drum up a lot of anxst and resentment. But it doesn't do me any good to do that. I used to, a lot. All that ever did was further ruin my life.

At the time, definitely. A day, week, or month later? Not at all. Being spanked as discipline^[1] barely hurts. You may be surprised what your backside can take. It stings at the time, and might burn for a few minutes, but it fades in time like anything else. In my experience and from my foggy memories I'd say 5 to 10 minutes later you don't feel it anymore. Or if you were really bad, probably 30 tops. In this Feminist society it seems to be so foreign to a lot of people, but 100 years ago (at least in North America) I think it was pretty universal.

Here's a random clip from a TV show made in the 70s that references spanking a girl as discipline and nobody bats an eye (even the ~6 year old sister wittily remarks, "[she's gonna get it!]"):

I would imagine that 100 years ago there just wasn't time for parents to manage "time outs", etc. You needed punishment that got the message across without having to babysit them 24/7. Something that they'd remember and fear in the future. To me it makes perfect sense. Hell, I've never seen a parent capable of keeping their eye on a child long enough to follow through with "time-out". And the second you turn your back that child is goofing around again. It becomes a game of, "who can do this all day, the 5 year old or the 30 year old?"

I am actually baffled that people are so opposed to spanking today. I imagine most of those people were never spanked. And a few were maybe abused instead of disciplined. And of course, there's also the Feminist influence in society...

I remember that show "Little House on the Prairie" like it was yesterday. It was kind of the Waltons in the 1870's. I can't find a clip, but I remember a Carol Burnett skit where Tim Conway is yelling "My poppa used to wallop me good, made a man out of me!" and Burnett replies "Well, I'd say he was a couple of wallops short!".

Can't say I resent my parents for using a belt on me. I resent them for flying off the handle at every little thing: Leaving a book on the coffee table could result in an hour long swear session and an ass beating. That, I think is lamentable. Mother is a high stress person.

As for AK's link:

People almost make me lose my top. I swear. I was standing in the foyer of my Credit Union awaiting the ATM, as there was already people waiting to make transactions. A mother and her 5 or 6 year old came and waited beside me. The little kid shit was playing on his iPhone ( ) and stood in the middle of the doors. Now BOTH sets of double doors open into the foyer. The kid would almost get hit with a set, and absentmindedly move to the other doors (rinse, repeat). Meanwhile I listen to his mother chide "Watch out, Johnny." "People are coming, Johnny." "Johnny, stand beside mommy." A good 30 times in about 10 minutes. Then he got sick of almost getting hit by doors, and started a 5 minute argument with his mother about him going to the car whether she wanted him to or not.

Seriously. Your kid doesn't respect you to the extent that he inconvenienced at least 20 people, and if this is how he acts in public, I can only imagine what your home life is like.

Yeah, my dad had a tempter, and liked to take it out on us. He didn't beat us kids. but minor infractions could lead to the belt.

He lost a lot of that as he aged, but it took a divorce, his kids leaving, his mom dying, his second eldest sister dying, his eldest son dying... Yeah. He ended up having it pretty rough, some of which was his own fault. In the end he had pretty much given up on life.

I can only remember getting a beating once. I had a moment of very bad judgement inspired by my primary childhood friend, you know, the guy that always wants to do the wrong thing.
It's actually amazing I didn't get myself in more trouble hanging with him...

My discipline was mainly incurred through stern voices and occasional yelling, for things like balls going through windows... How is it my fault balls go through windows anyway, why the heck do you have to put so many windows on all the walls so you can't play with balls safely anywhere?

I got a beating several times, from both my parents. Most shrug it off, like it was nothing. Fucked up.

I remember one time, I got fish food on fresh laundry. I was terrified of what might happen when my mom finds out. So what did I do? I lied and said I don't know who did it. Then we (me and my two sisters) were set in a line and spanked sequentially until eventually I confessed and told and got spanked some more for lying.

There are several fucked up things there. The most obvious thing being that I didn't trust my parents enough to tell them the truth in the first place. Maybe the punishment would be... I don't know, clean the shit up? Yeah, that would teach me. But nope, I got a spanking and several minutes of fear when anticipating it. Anything learned? Nope.

That's pretty horrific.

I remember smashing the windscreen of my dad's car with a cricket ball at a time when my parents were in financial trouble. I went to them in tears to apologise, and I got a hug from both and told "it will be okay".

Reading this and other threads, I can't decide whether it's the beating that they suffer benefit from as a child or the pervasive conspiracy of feminism which leads to a disturbing preference for washing machines in manly adult men.

I was beaten (too often imho) as a child, and although I clip my son(s) around the head, and even once or twice spanked them, I would never use an implement on them other than my open hand (I hope.... but also having kids, I know how easy it is to "go ballastic" at them).

Anyway something that remains in my mind, was the final time my father took the belt to me and my brother. I must of been about 11, my brother 15/16. We were lying on the bed waiting for punishment, when my brother got up turned to our dad and said absolutely calmly...

"If you ever hit me or my brother again I will punch/kill/hurt you".

He never touched us again.

I don't think most of the people here using the word "beating" and I agree on the meaning of the word.

also the word "horrific".

Something similar here.

So getting beat for the fact that the parent doesnt like something whern it isn't any fucking thing that I am responsible for is bullshit.

No authority = No responsibility.

Make me in charge of it or don't fucking hold me fucking accountable for fucking anything you fucking shit.

But that's all watter under the bridge, my dad was learning I suppose you could say. I was the eldest, my dad is better now and we have a pretty good relationship.

The beating stopped when I basically got old / big / strong enough that I'd push him the fuck around instead. Like him and his father (my grandfather) actually.

I'll beat my children if/when I have any but only if they have done something they shouldn't have, or if they didn't do something they should, and then I will say what they should / shouldn't have done, and that now they will be beat for failing and if they dont like it then do/dont do it again.

I was quite depressed as a child though and I didn't like other people so when in a social setting my dad would want me to be like those gay normal kids and smile and be sociable but I'd say fuck you and I had a sharpened steak knife to cut anyone that tried to do anything so there was a lot of friction and stuff mainly because I was smarter, taller, more facial hair and more mature than normal kids at my age while growing up. Most of my best friends where in year levels above where I was so I just wasn't a very good fit for Australian public schools and psuedo-Christian fake preening fuckwit society.

So I'm not really sure there is/was anything else to be done about it, its just how it is some times. In times gone past I'd be a warlord or something because I am naturally very judgmental and self-defined but in modern society there's not really any place for someone with that kind of inclination and the teachers / other parents / police / your own parents just beat you down over the years.

Some times when my dad was what I now believe to be scared of me, he would send me outside for the night (just because he was a stupid freaking idiot sometimes, no real reason here) and I went outside for the night and of course I was very angry and pacing around was going to smash the windows go in there and smash him and make it my own fucking house but before I'd make up my mind and did anything he'd come out and say he was sorry and I'd end up going back in and sleeping in my bed in the end. So I wouldn't say he was a bad person just a foolish parent, and he'd certainly never do anything outright malicious to me, and I wouldn't to him either.

Siblings are often much worse. Such as stand offs with kitchen knives for example. I got cut twice by my younger brother with a big kitchen knife (thankfully just slashes to the forearm so I never had to go into hospital) trying to take it off him for some reason because he was being a shithead or something. We weren't very nice to each other. I didn't like any of my family, they didn't like me or each other. No one really liked anyone else.

But at school nothing that bad would happen because the police and sometimes some other kids would get involved before it got very bad which while resented at the time was probably for the best in hindsight.

It's just a part of growing up. Newage parents and social philosophy might backfire in a major way I think.

For the ones that are bad at it sure. Just like with the previous generations.

One way gets you serial killers or super depressed suicidal people, the other gets you self-centered over entitled dick wads.

There is bullshit with everything. A century ago or so you'd have an illness and they'd bleed you dry to "heal" you. That's the past.

Actually, there is hard science being done on how to correctly raise children. It doesn't say its the only way, but its a good way. But its a guiding line, you can take it or leave it. Just like Thomas said.

I don't know what people "new age" parents will produce, as long as they don't produce people who write the above, they're OK.

I really hope "beat" doesn't mean here what it means to me. Seriously.

beating != spanking.

I think it can mean different things to different people.

It was beating with an open hand (or with the spoon), it hurt, physically and emotionally. It never left any bruises or marks... It was discipline.

But you can far more effectively train a child without beating or "spanking" them. Reward is a superior tool than punishment.

But OK, suppose there is a line between discipline (spanking) and beating. Who gets to draw it? Will parents be able to walk it? I don't think so. People are people, they will get emotional and they will let it out on their child.

And people who say it didn't affect them are just plain bullshitting. Maybe it didn't fuck them up awfully bad, but it sure as heck didn't give you a head start in life.

What happened happened, but continuing this practice in any form... Well, needless to say I'm against it.

In general yes. But as you say above, who gets to draw the line? The parents? Clearly that's worked out awesomely.

Personally, I think some of the current parenting practices are worse than spanking. It's essentially neglect. Letting them have what they want when they want because "PUNISHING CHILDREN IN ANY WAY IS BAD".

I should say, I'm more against neglect than even spanking used as punishment. At least you're trying.

Beatings ^[1] of any kind should get you put in jail.

append: I'm not PRO spanking. I don't like it very much at all. But if worse comes to worse, and the kid doesn't respond to anything else? what are you going to do? Let them be a terror?

Maybe there are no great ways to solve that problem. Hitting your child will most certainly not stop them from being horrible. It might stop them from being horrible in your presence, but that doesn't really solve anything. The only thing they will learn is how to lie and avoid getting punished.

That is certainly a possibility. I used to lie a lot. But I assume that was because my parents weren't very consistent. ie: lying would work often enough.

For me, it would be absolute last resort. I would have to be 10000% sure nothing else is an option.

I think a quick pop on their bottom will get their attention when they're acting up, but reason (even simplistic reasons that a child will understand) is the way to guide them. For some things, such as not playing in the street, you have to be pretty firm no matter what, so be it.

For the simplistic reasons, I remember an old Dennis the Menace comic. Dennis asks Margaret why the grass is green, she goes into this long spiel about chlorophyll and photosynthesis, Dennis gets frustrated and asks Mr. Wilson, who replies "Because green turned out to be the best color for it" (grass). Dennis then gets on Margarets case for not coming up with a good reason like that.

Here are a few things to consider:

• Laws are useless if not enforced.

• Enforcing laws requires manpower, money, equipment, etc.

• There are always going to be way more parents than law enforcers.

• Human parents are biologically programmed to care for their offspring.

• The state cannot actually raise children themselves.

  • Children are shipped off to foster homes or orphanages, and these residences are typically over-filled with children of all ages (Oh, you thought one biological brother in a relatively stable home was a bully? Just imagine...).

  • There are more children than even parents so there certainly is not enough manpower to verify that children are being properly cared for.

  • Many of these establishments are run by selfish people that just want the free money from the government and don't care at all about the children.

  • I don't think I've ever heard a child say they liked living in foster care (in extreme cases, it was surely better than living with their parents, but I mean extreme abuse).

You can basically conclude this: there is no perfect solution to the problem. The best that you can do is trust parents to do the job themselves, and leave it up to them to decide how that is best accomplished. The government should not intervene unless abuse in involved, and in making the choice to intervene the government should consider if the alternative is better (i.e., will the child be better or worse off in "the system", where they are also very likely to be abused or neglected).

Parents that blatantly abuse or neglect their children should certainly be punished. In most cases, educating them is probably a better resolve than merely imprisoning or fining them. Perhaps both. Certainly there will be extreme cases where the offender is basically just criminal and deserves to be treated as such.

At the end of the day, you have to accept that we cannot save them all. We should not let our strong feelings about legitimate abuse cloud our judgement over reasonable discipline.

You should not require a reward to act good. That just sets you up for misbehavior when no resources are available to reward you. Children will always lie to avoid punishment. If they aren't trying to lie to avoid punishment they're either smart enough to know when they won't get away with it, legitimately sorry and willing to take responsibility, or completely indifferent to the "discipline" tactics of their parents (i.e., the discipline is negligible and probably useless).

Parents should not be negotiating with children. The child has no choice. They must do as the parent says. Why? Because the child is not mature enough to know what is best for them, and the parent is responsible for them in every way. It is very much the same with a dog. Do not feel sorry for a dog that is forced to lay down or forced to go outside or whatever. It does not have a choice, and there's nothing wrong with that. It works the exact same way in the wild. A wild animal parent does not give their offspring the option to listen. They are told, and if necessary corrected. All in the best interest of the child.

No parent is perfect. There is no instruction manual for children, and they are constantly changing, as are the parents. It is how the world operates. There is no perfection, but through all of the mistakes life perseveres. I think that's pretty cool.

Append:

I have to run, but I wanted to add one more point. I believe that often yelling or screaming at a child is far worse psychologically than spanking them. Children will always test the patience of parents, and parents that are uncomfortable or against spanking typically resort of verbal abuse when the child becomes uncooperative. I think that's far worse than giving them a spanking.

Saying it doesn't make it true. It's very much not my experience.

Parent of a 2.5 year old child here.

What works for me for discipline is not punishment but threating to take away things she enjoys.

For example, if she doesn't wash her teeth, no longer she can watch her favorite cartoon.

If she doesn't wash her hands, she will have to visit the doctor to get a vaccine (kids hate the doctor a lot).

If she doesn't eat her food, she doesn't get a cookie afterwards.

It works most of the time.

What would happen if she called your bluff? You actually go get a vaccine? If it's helpful, why not get it anyway?

Just to nitpick, but its not really good to perpetuate a fear of doctors.

I got a 4 year old and the 2.5 year old disciplines don't work anymore What do I do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clicker_training

I hear it works on humans just as well as dogs.

An "attaboy" (or attagirl, as appropriate) should suffice.

Positive reinforcement does tend to work rather well. But not always, or in all situations.

Something like, Mia if you stop screaming at the top of your lungs and bouncing on the bed we may take you to Chuck-e-cheeses later.... So she can bounce and scream....

Positive re-enforcement refers to rewarding good behavior when they're good (and should not be a treat, but just praise). It is not about bribing them to be good when they're being bad. That just encourages them to be bad so that they can get rewarded for stopping. A dog could play that game.

Open hand to the buttocks. (The smiley is for lulz... You should not be expressing your anger or frustration when you do it. Aim for calm-assertive,...)

Heh. I wouldn't imagine using it for negative behaviour. More like when the child is doing good, reward it (even if most of the time its just positive verbal reinforcement).

Haven't read the whole thread yet.
On-topic: Who the hell can think that book does any good? It seems to be literally just a collection of the most sadistic behaviour a parent can have.
Off-topic: I've always believed any physical punishment for kids is bad, until recently. I think such punishment does "humble", as the authors of that gruesome book rightfully put it. I now think it should be used in cases the child argues and thinks (s)he's right, but is grossly wrong. It should never be done out of anger or a deluded sense of justice.
BTW I'm pretty sure 100 years ago wasn't any better :p You're romanticizing.

I dunno about using it in the case of arguments. For me to ever use it I'd have to be an exceptional circumstance. I really don't like using violence, but I can't categorically rule it out.

Hm, arguments wasn't really what I meant. I always picture talking first, so there would be an argument. It's things they just couldn't understand. There's actually a Dutch saying in that regard: "He who doesn't want to listen, has to feel it".

Spanking isn't "violence" by definition. It is discipline. Just because there is physical force does not mean it is violence. They are distinct concepts. Lumping it in with violence is a good way for people to side against it without even understanding it just by associating it with violence, since we understand that violence is always bad (which isn't the same as unjust or unnecessary, but generally still undesirable).

I don't think that it will really work to pick and choose when you spank. You either spank or you don't. Picking and choosing would likely just confuse the child and ultimately be unfair. There's no harm in spanking properly. Do not think of it as extreme. It's not.

I wonder if teenagers would even need to be disciplined if it wasn't for their hormones making bad or risky behavior seem worth it. They are generally otherwise old enough to understand and appreciate what's wrong with their actions. Spanking isn't really appropriate when they reach that age. They're old enough to negotiate with, but naive, and sometimes susceptible to their hormones. All you can really do is try to limit their ability to fuck up their life. It's mostly just about riding out the storm.

Trying to play around with definitions is pointless. People who are going to abuse their children don't care what the term for it is.

The only way to get a child to stop being whiny and violent is to ignore it.
Teach them that such behaviour doesn't get them any response or attention, only then will they find other ways to get what they want.

No one can stand being bored, and there is nothing more boring than trying to get a response out of someone and be completely ignored.

The common advice on the internet is to not feed the trolls. We know that every response to a troll gives them more energy. The same thing goes for children.

But if you don't feed your children they will die.

If only not feeding trolls killed them... It merely weakens them and makes them go dormant.

Like I said: to spank or not to spank, that is the discussion, and it still continues.

I think we can all agree that smacking your infant on the legs to get them to stop crying is a bad idea. "No Greater Joy Ministries" has 5000 likes on FB. Some people are so gullible you can piss in their mouth and tell them its lemonade.

Except they will get a response from everybody that isn't able to ignore them (i.e., everybody that isn't their parents). Your child has no right to be an asshole just because he's a child. It's your job to correct them. Not ignore them. You better either be in control of them or keep them contained within your home.

A quick spank (or if they've been spanked before, just a threat) would put a stop to it and let everybody else go on with their day in peace. Though you probably wouldn't even need to say anything if your child has been spanked before because they wouldn't be obnoxious enough to think they would get away with that. Instead, parents these days just sit there like, "Gee, golly, what can I do if he doesn't want to be quiet...? "

LET ME SHOW YOU.

I was embarrassed once or twice from getting spanked in public for being an obnoxious brat (i.e., think like 5 years old). After that, I was embarrassed a few more times getting threatened to get a spank in public for being an obnoxious brat (i.e., think like 8). After that the threat of a spank wasn't even necessary because I just knew not to be an obnoxious brat[, especially not in public].

Well a spanking can be quite a disruptive thing too. There's the loud slapping sound, followed by all of the crying. Everybody around is left trying to judge whether it is abuse or discipline (and in our overly sensitive modern society, large numbers of people would wrongly condemn it as abuse, even if it is discipline). If you can it's probably best to take it into the privacy of your home, or at least the parking lot first, or whatever. That said, if you can't easily leave, and the child refuses to obey, then I think that spanking in public is acceptable.

You're failing to realize that trolls are an Internet phenomenon that typically doesn't apply to the real world. An asshole in the real world will probably get punched in the face sooner or later. Not every response to a troll gives them energy.

The key is to not react to their trolling.
Only react to good stuff.

If you keep punishing your children for doing things wrong, they will only become afraid of telling you when they mess up. They wont come to you for help when they're in trouble, which means they can get really deep into heavy drugs for example as they don't dare seek help.

The only thing violence teaches children is how to hide things from their parents.

What about sticking things into the electrical outlets, playing in the street, or even beating up the neighbor kids?

It's important to explain to your children why they're getting punished and that you love them anyway. You most certainly can make an effort to explain to them that they can come to you first about stuff and if they do come to you first then you should certainly take that into account and maybe go easy on them. You do have to watch out for them to try to exploit that though too.. It's important that they don't get away with it if they come forward. They should still be punished. It just might be a lighter sentence for them being honest and coming to you for help. In any case, punishing them for their mistakes will not make them afraid to come to you if you talk openly with them. It's a different part of you entirely. Children that are spanked are not afraid of their parents 24/7. Only when they feel guilty for something.

Of course, I believe that a child that is spanked will probably be more afraid of trying something like drugs. Drugs are a very serious thing, and it's up to parents to tell the kids that. The kids that know the severity (at least in their parents' eyes) and are spanked can only imagine how much it's going to hurt if they are caught. At least, at a young age like 8 or 10 where a lot of kids seem to be getting into it now. It's sort of early for a heart-to-heart at that age. They can't possibly understand. They should just be too afraid to even try it.

As a matter of fact, I was surprised to find out that my high school love interest apparently tried smoking when she was only about 12 and even encouraged her even younger cousin to try. And she was a "goody-two-shoes" Christian girl... I would have never dreamed of it. I was afraid to go anywhere near a cigarette, even in high school, let alone elementary school!

There are some things that kids just won't talk to their parents about easily. They'd be ashamed to. You know your parents are going to be disappointed and rightly so. IMO, it's better that the kid is afraid of screwing up than for them to be unafraid of screwing up and unafraid of telling you about it after. Some of the things that they could screw up (especially these days it seems) might leave them too dead to come to you about after.

By the time children are in high school the spankings should have stopped. So it's a non-issue at that point. They are effectively approaching "young adulthood" where they have to start making their own choices and being responsible for them. Still though, I think that a teenager that was spanked growing up will be more afraid of getting caught than one that wasn't.

My parents were pretty much there for us. I was still afraid of them catching me doing something wrong, but at the same time they did make the effort to let us come to them with things and other than them being awkward about relationship stuff I did feel pretty good about talking to them about most stuff (as with most kids, I was most comfortable talking to my mom because she was softer... I think that a broken home leaves the parents unbalanced in that sense and unable to really be there for the kids as a team in the ways that they should).

My brother started smoking in high school. He got caught a few times too. Didn't get spanked or anything. He was too old. My parents treated him like a young adult. They tried to openly talk sense into him, grounded him, etc. Didn't really matter. There was no stopping him. His friends smoked. You really can't do much about that. A person is either able to stand alone or succumbs to the peer pressure.

To this day he is a slave to cigarettes. He has tried to quit 3 or 4 times now, even with some success, but eventually succumbs to it again. I don't think there was anything else that my parents could have done. He made his own choices, and he was never known for making good ones. Some people use their heads, and some people can't seem to when it counts. I know that growing up he was afraid of getting caught by my parents though. I witnessed fear of the repercussions help to keep him out of serious trouble on many occasions.

Any kind of discipline (that matters) will train a child to try to hide things from their parents. If they aren't trying to hide it then they obviously aren't afraid of the punishment. That doesn't stop them from doing it. They're just not afraid of getting caught doing it. Arguably this might help you to spot really extreme shit more easily, but at the expense of failing to teach them any values and letting them be an asshole their whole life, as well as letting them do a bunch of stuff that you shouldn't. Also, if you never punish them then what are you going to do to stop them when you do catch them with something serious? By the time they're 12 or 14 if they're not afraid of the consequences yet then it's too late. You won't be able to control them. Period. If you try they'll just run away. They'd have been taught their whole life that their decisions don't have any real consequences. You can't just suddenly start in with consequences that late in their development.