obscenitiesFollow

I maintain that only those who are mentally ill beyond any normal means of social interaction would do that if raised with an understanding that socially unnaceptable behavior is punished (by whatever means).



That's an excellent sounding piece of advice. But it just sounds good. It doesn't really apply. Children are not adults in smaller bodies. They don't have an adult's perceptions or understandings of some things that we take very much for granted. If no mental connection is made between 'hot iron' and 'pain', then sooner or later when you are NOT there to pick the child up, you may wind up peeling his face tissue off the hot plate of that iron when he pulled it off the ironing board onto himself.

Any sort of punishment should be instructive. Otherwise it's pointless. It doesn't matter if it's a pop on the hand, a whipping, restriction, timeout, whatever. If no guidance is imparted, then the method has failed.

For the most part, I happen to agree with Smasharoo.

However, I don't think the teacher needs to be fired, and I do agree that something needed to be done since the child didn't seem to be getting the proper lessons at home. I also don't necessarily disagree with the drop of soap that she did.

If it was my child, and it was a drop of soap (as opposed to a bar of soap shoved into his mouth), I'd be more upset with my kid for being bad than with the teacher for correcting him. Teachers are there to teach our children, both about facts and figures, and about social-interactions, especially in kindergarten, where we learn to share, play nice, etc, etc.

However, I don't think hitting kids is alright in most cases. You can be inventive about discipline without resorting to being hit for almost every situation. My only concern is that with some kids, instead of using appropriate punishment, parents start bribing them into good behavior, which leads to spoiled rotten brats.

However, in my opinion, there are a few cases where it is warrented though.. like, the kid hitting other people, (or as Smash said, burning down the neighbors house), or some other form of truly reproachable behavior.

The child I'm thinking about is the son of a family friend Mary, who never ever ever spanked him or anything. Mary is about the sweetest nicest person in the world.

When he wanted something, and Mary told him "No", he'd reach out and slap her. My mother saw this one time and told Mary to slap him back. Mary at first wouldn't, until my Mom (good ol' Italian background, corporal punishment galore!) told Mary she'd slap him if Mary didn't. (See, violence works. :P)

So, Mary lightly smacked her son on the cheek and told him to never hit her again. Her son slapped her again. So Mary slapped him a bit harder on the cheek and told him, to NEVER hit her again.

He stopped hitting her after that.

So.. was this child abuse by Mary lightly slapping her son on the cheek? Or after finally getting to the point where other methods of trying to make him stop hitting his mother failed, was corporal punishment warrented in this case?

I've seen kids smacking their parents in fast food restaurants, because their mom got them a coke instead of a sprite. And the mother apologized to her kid. Isn't that parental abuse? That kid apparently already learned that violence will get him what he wants, without him ever being slapped.

There are children that do not respond to this type of punishment. Each child responds differently to learning, even punishments. You need to find a non violent, yet firm approach and appropriate punishment for each child to teaching them that their actions are inappropriate and hurtful to other people or to themselves.



I am not saying that at all. What I am saying in context to the previous posts here is that sometime slapping is appropriate and not by a teacher, preacher, or scout leader. The teacher did not use the best judgement, but she should not be fired because of it. Severely reprimanded yes. Not Fired.



Not at all, the cause of the "problem" lies with the parents allowing this type of behavior to continue. A close look at the parents, parenting skills is in order to determine if the child is being raised with proper stimulation and guidance in social interaction.

That never requires hitting them unless they are litterally psychopaths, and then really medication is a better idea.

Only if he gets what he wants.




Actually, yes it is. It's also time to call the police.



You alter the behaviour by showing them that WILL NOT get what they want. What's complicated about that. By hitting them back you teach them that the bigger stronger person gets what they want.

Not good.

There is a difference between being compelled to do something and simply picking a method that applies to a situation. What Mary actually did by striking the child back was to teach the child that striking another person is likely going to cause them to strike you back. A very real world lesson.

Since the child did not enjoy the sensation of being struck, he stopped taking the action that caused him to be struck.

Hey, maybe every child should grow up in close vicinity to an electric fence. It's very instructional when you're about 5 or so.

Touch it, zap.
Hit it, zap.
Pee on it, zap.
'Hey, maybe I shouldn't mess with that thing.'

I see what you're saying now.

But to do that, you need to have a parent who will let their kid throw a temper tantrum, embarass them in the supermarket, possibly slap at them, and all sorts of other irksome and annoying and etc things kids do to get what they want... and most parents today just don't have the time to deal with that! Just give the kid what he wants so he'll shut up!

So.. what happens to those kids, then?

Replacing bad parenting with other bad parenting doesn't strike me as the solution.



They grow up and post on this forum :)

I think this is based on the mistaken assumption that corporal punishment, ie hitting is used as a sole method of instructing a child. That would be about like trying to build a house with no other tools than a hammer.

By not giving in, you could also alter the behavior in other methods. Child wants, child hits, you don't give. Child wants, child hits harder, you don't give. Child wants, child gets steak knife and sticks it in your craw, you don't give. Child wants, child burns down the neighbors house, killing all inside and runs around your house dragging the remains, aww ***** it, time to hit em.

Children have to learn as they grow. It's a process. If you get the point across, it doesn't really matter HOW you got it across. The ends DOES justify the means, to an extent. I'm not telling anyone how to raise their own kids. But it is very clear to me that corporal punishment isn't wrong, nor is it to be used only by inferior parents who have failed in other areas. It's just another tool, which when used properly, helps to turn a child into a mature adult.

No, it's like building a house with a shotgun to assume that hitting a child is a tool you need to raise one.





When they burn the house down, or threaten you with a knife, hit away.



Well, we disagree then. I haven't seen you make a case for hitting a child and I don't really think you need to make case for not hitting a child seeing as we agree that it's the correct thing to do nearly all of the time.




If you say so. I could say the same thing about burning children with a ciggerette. IF done properly it helps them grow into better people. Not very convincing, is it?

That'd be nice and non toxic if it were dish washing soap. What if it was...HYDROCHLORIC ACID!!!

What if it was not necessary becuase the previous attempts at correction actually worked?

Shall we continue to play the what if game... obviously IT wasn't.

Hydrochloric acid won't "dissolve flesh", but it will start to boil on your skin if the concentration is high enough. I think that Smash was thinking of sulfuric acid. That's some nasty stuff if it's concentrated.

Twiztid