This is why we teach you not to play with matches, kids.

I was spanked a couple times as a child. I remember them very well, because they did happen so rarely, and when they did, it was when I crossed over The Line as so many of you have said in your examples. One in particular was for throwing a temper tantrum in a department store, which I guess I didn't really have a habit of doing but it happened often enough mom got fed up with it. She took me to the dressing rooms, spanked me, and told me to be quiet, and that you did not act that way in public. I never threw a tantrum again... at least in public.

Regardless, spanking after the building burned down is probably like closing the barn doors after the cows have left: too little, too late. If the kids didn't see the destruction they caused, even by accident, and didn't feel guilty for it... then spanking would be too little, too late. I think if this had been me and my brothers, my mom would have given us the "I'm so disappointed" speech, which was always a thousand times worse than a spanking.

Knight wrote:

VB wrote:

Do those who are endorsing it really think that they'll take something away from it, or do they just want the kids to suffer some physical, tangible negative consequences for their actions? Somehow, I think it's the latter.

It think that tangible negative consequences for bad actions are a perfectly fine way of discipline, and not just for children, as long as the person being disciplined isn't seriously injured*.

That's not what I was asking. Max put it better:

Maximilia wrote:

Regardless, spanking after the building burned down
is probably like closing the barn doors after the cows have left: too
little, too late. If the kids didn't see the destruction they caused,
even by accident, and didn't feel guilty for it... then spanking would
be too little, too late.

Do you really think that in this particular case it'll do any good? Because if so, I'd like you to explain how. How would pain help to reinforce this particular lesson, in a way that seeing people's homes burned to the ground, national media exposure, and law enforcement involvement has not already? Do you really think these kids need physical punishment to make this lesson "stick", or do you just want them to be spanked because it satisfies your own desire for them to suffer for what they've done?

Quote :

To simplify my stance on spanking: Pain is a deterrent. We learn not to play with fire by getting burned, not to play with sharp objects by cutting ourselves, and I think that in the case of a child severely misbehaving the best way for them to learn not to do it again if all else has failed is a spanking. I do think that spanking should be a last resort, but I don't feel that it should be considered abuse or ineffective, because I know that for me it was probably most effective than anything else my parents ever did.

For you. For me it was humiliating and infuriating, and made me resentful of my parents and more apt to lash out than ever. Also, we don't know that in this particular scenario all else has failed. This could be the first time they have ever played with matches. Or at the very least, the first time they've ever been caught at it.

And there are more punishments to be considered other than being sent to your room, and then spanking if that doesn't work. My parents took phone or computer privileges away, made me stay home on weekends, gave me extra chores, etc. There aren't just options A or B. It's up to the parent to determine which ones work best with their child, instead of uselessly using the same ineffective punishment over and over again, and when that doesn't work, hit them.

My mother hit me once in my life. I hit her (I was six) and she hit me back. I got the point that when you hit people they may hit you back. Fair point.
When I get really mad people might hit me? When I'm not how other people want me to be they might hit me? Not such fair points.

I think the punishment should have something to do with the "crime", as in, if you break something, your parents make you pay or work to replace it, etc. Beating children for not shutting up (as advised by several people back in the toddler-kicked-off-plane thread on GAFF) just means that the parent are fucking unimaginative and helpless in getting their point across any other way.

Seule wrote:

They are human beings, not idiotic, selfish monsters.

Err...what's the difference?

Seule wrote:

Every child does dumb things in the name of adventure, of finding out more about the world around them. And sometimes it backfires badly, like my friend who broke her arm falling from a tree, like my brother who needed stitches after 'playing' with broken glass, like my cousin who set her bed on fire after mucking about with her overheated lamp. Sometimes it backfires horribly, like what happened to these little boys. They burned down a building. But don't forget, what they did were the same basic actions of the kid who burns their finger, who burns a hole in the carpet, who sets a napkin on fire. It's not like they purposely set out to set the building on fire. What they did was stupid, yes. But no more stupid than things that normal children do every fucking day. They were simply unlucky in that their actions backfired so terribly.

This. What these kids did was irresponsible and dangerous, but I don't think it was extraordinary by any means, unless they honestly did set out to burn down the building.

I think people overestimate the good that warnings do, especially for children. Yes, these kids were probably taught that playing with matches is bad. So? What the hell does that matter? Should they have listened to those warnings? Yeah, obviously. But being warned doesn't mean that someone, especially a child, will honestly understand the consequences. And it's not that uncommon for people to ignore even the best of warnings.

Look at how many fairy tales and folk tales involve people, often children, facing consequences for not heeding warnings. It's clearly a phenomenon that's common in human psychology.

Also, children aside, there are a lot of cases of adults not heeding warnings, too. We've all heard that we should wear our seat belts. Yet, there are still adults who choose not to, despite hearing these warnings or even having to worry about getting a ticket.

People tend not to appreciate the consequences until they happen to them. And this tendency is much stronger in children and teens.

Quote :

Finally, if you see an adult behaving like a cock - not even a stranger, maybe your spouse, your sibling, uncle, aunt, a parent, hell even a grandparent - what do you do? Do you go and give them a smack for being such an arsehole? And if not... why not?

And this is one of the big reasons why I can't condone spanking as a punishment for children. Children can't be treated exactly like adults, but treating them in a way that would considered assault if they were older defies sense to me. Also, I think that even if we can't treat children like adults, we should be preparing them for life as an adult. An adult is not going to be spanked by their boss for not getting a project done on time, nor are they going to be spanked for destroying property. Spanking just teaches children to fear the pain of punishment--it doesn't teach them to take personal responsibility and accept consequences, which is an important skill for adults.

I don't think these kids need manufactured consequences, either. Their actions came with huge consequences. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense, and teach the kids a lot more in the long run, to have them help with the clean-up in some age-appropriate way and give up their allowances for a while to help pay for the damage?

myeerah wrote:

Seule wrote:

They are human beings, not idiotic, selfish monsters.

Err...what's the difference?

They'll be the ones taking care of you when you're old. Don't forget that.