How should parents be allowed to punish their children? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14890700
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think that a child reaching for a hot element is just as deserving of violence as a grown man preaching the same genocide we supposedly fought against in WWII?

Or conversely, do you think Nazis are just confused children who need to be taught and coddled?

When WWII started the Soviets had committed genocide the Nazis hadn't. As we ended up allied with the Soviets, it was necessary to demonise the Nazis and whitewash the Communists.

The irony is that many Liberals reluctantly supported the Nazis in 1933 as the only alternative to the Communist genociders taking power in Germany. Its the same logic that leads Liberals to back Assad to save them from the Sunni Muslim genodicers.
#14890721
Agent Steele wrote:What kind punishment should be allowed?

Maybe they should be subject to scolding by Ross Matthews.

As for punishing children, I think short of waterboarding, torture, electroshock therapy or sensory deprivation, maybe we should just tell them that they are going to have to spend some time with Anthony Weiner.
#14890808
Godstud wrote:Unless it's child abuse(not spankings), parents should be allowed to punish their child in any way they see fit.


With respect, I totally disagree. Children and teens are not property to be treated like you wish. And the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also disagrees with you.

Article 19 addresses violence against children. It emphasises that State Parties must have proper laws in place to prohibit violence, but it also requires States to implement administrative, social and educational measures to protect children. All forms of violence, both physical and mental, fall under article 19.

Much violence is hidden within the private realm of the family, or within the confines of schools, prisons, care homes and other institutions. State Parties have a duty to prevent such harms, to investigate cases of violence and hold those responsible to account.

The UN Study on Violence Against Children notes that while there may be no outwardly visible sign of injury, “in all instances...physical violence has a negative impact on a child’s psychological health and development” (UNVC, 2006: 53). People who were physically abused as children may have problems with personal relationships and they may be more likely to treat their own children abusively.

The General Comment also notes that the principle of the rule of law should apply fully to children as it does to adults, and this includes the right to be free from all forms of corporal punishment.

https://www.crin.org/en/home/rights/con ... nd-neglect
#14890809
:lol: Well that's fine for the fucking UN, but they aren't raising any children, are they?

What is mental violence?

A spanking is not child abuse, and is not physically abusing your child unless you are under the assumption that people who spank their children have to do it on a daily basis, and seek to injure them. They do not.

I've had to spank my 7 year old son probably less than 20 times in his whole life, and now I am to the point where he doesn't get spanked atall. He's probably had one spanking in the last year, and it was from his mother, whom he scared to hell by disappearing for an hour with his friends. If he does something truly dangerous, then the spanking is there as an immediate correction, but now there are simply more effective disciplinary methods, and his discipline level is such that it's not necessary.

The people against spankings really don't know much about how they are used, and there is a vast difference between a spanking and child abuse in exponential levels.

Note: Who the fuck spanks a teen? You cannot. You should not. If they don't know discipline by then, then you've failed as a parent.

My mother always told me, "A well disciplined child is a well loved child.". It's true. Good children gain more praise and love from the people around them, and are more helpful. At least that's how I look at it.

My mother broke more than a few wooden spoons on my ass, and I learned to avoid that situation... most of the time, but probably got more spankings than I should have, because I was a shit-disturber. :D
#14890846
Godstud wrote::lol: Well that's fine for the fucking UN, but they aren't raising any children, are they?

What is mental violence?

A spanking is not child abuse, and is not physically abusing your child unless you are under the assumption that people who spank their children have to do it on a daily basis, and seek to injure them. They do not.

I've had to spank my 7 year old son probably less than 20 times in his whole life, and now I am to the point where he doesn't get spanked atall. He's probably had one spanking in the last year, and it was from his mother, whom he scared to hell by disappearing for an hour with his friends. If he does something truly dangerous, then the spanking is there as an immediate correction, but now there are simply more effective disciplinary methods, and his discipline level is such that it's not necessary.

The people against spankings really don't know much about how they are used, and there is a vast difference between a spanking and child abuse in exponential levels.

Note: Who the fuck spanks a teen? You cannot. You should not. If they don't know discipline by then, then you've failed as a parent.

My mother always told me, "A well disciplined child is a well loved child.". It's true. Good children gain more praise and love from the people around them, and are more helpful. At least that's how I look at it.

My mother broke more than a few wooden spoons on my ass, and I learned to avoid that situation... most of the time, but probably got more spankings than I should have, because I was a shit-disturber. :D


Are you an American? I mean no disrespect, but I only ask cos some Americans seem to have quite old-fashioned ideas about parents and children, and the USA is the only country, other than Somalia, which refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And the UN is an organisation of thousands of people from all around the world - I'm sure some of those people have children. :)
#14890849
Godstud wrote:I am Canadian, and I feel your response is emotional and melodramatic.


Lol, well I guess Canadians are North Americans, and so are Mexicans, so I should have asked if you were a US citizen. My family has both US American and Canadian American friends, and I can't tell much difference, but Canadians seem to have a better system of government, and better social systems.

And no, I don't think I'm being either emotional or melodramatic in quoting a UN convention ratified by the entire world except for the US and Somalia. The world moves on, and modern people don't think it is right to cause pain to children. Like I said, I mean no disrespect, but hitting children is more in line with the stories of Charles Dickens than a modern parent. And I do not agree that parents have the right to do what they like with their children.
#14890887
Paddy14 wrote:Like I said, I mean no disrespect, but hitting children is more in line with the stories of Charles Dickens than a modern parent. And I do not agree that parents have the right to do what they like with their children
I see you have absolutely no parenting experience.

Spanking, as far as discipline goes, is the "capital punishment" of parenting punishments, and should be viewed as such, and used sparingly. Like I said, I've used spanking, but it's not the only punishment out there, but there is a time and place for it.

Spanking is not child abuse, and it is a fucking joke to view it as "violence against children". The point of that UN resolution was to fight child abuse, not child discipline.

Paddy14 wrote:And I do not agree that parents have the right to do what they like with their children.
So what? As I said before, parents have a right to discipline their child in any manner, provided it's not child abuse. Just because you think it's abuse, does not make it so.

Also, @Paddy14 please answer my questions as to what mental abuse is. What is it? How and what determines what is mental abuse? You could argue that anything that distresses a child is mental abuse, and then you'd have NO discipline. I see that as the far left wing SJW bullshit coming out to harass parents. (I am a liberal btw, and even I find this offensive)
#14890981
Paddy14 wrote:Like I said, I mean no disrespect, but hitting children is more in line with the stories of Charles Dickens than a modern parent. And I do not agree that parents have the right to do what they like with their children.


Every. Single. Parent. In my entire community spanks their children and have for like 300 years. this is just retarded.

My old man spanked my ass with a switch when I was 13 (the last time I got whooped) because my brother and I threw dirt clods into the cab of a skid-loader he borrowed from a neighbor.

No bruises or blood, only a temporary welt that was gone in like an hour. We both lived, not abuse, just parenting, and boy did I fucking deserve it. :lol:
#14891043
Spanking is not child abuse, and it is a fucking joke to view it as "violence against children". The point of that UN resolution was to fight child abuse, not child discipline.


Correct.
#14891083
As far as I can tell, there is no good argument for allowing corporal punishment of children.

There seem to be good reasons why parents should not spank:

1. We are already probibited from disciplining other adults in this manner, even if they are related to us. Since we live in a supposedly egalitarian society, children hould have those same legal rights.
2. Corporal punishment has been shown to cause violence and anti-social behaviour, has been linked to psychological problems, and may be associated with slower cognitive development and lower grades.
3. It doesn’t work.

As to whether or not parents should be forbidden from doing so, that would depend on several things, like whether or not you think hitting kids is okay, how enforceable any law would be, and whether or not there are other ways to get parents to stop hitting children.
#14891110
Pants of Dog wrote:1. We are already probibited from disciplining other adults in this manner, even if they are related to us. Since we live in a supposedly egalitarian society, children should have those same legal rights.
I disagree. Children don't have a right to vote, and a great many other rights that adults have. Again, we are not talking about child abuse.

Pants of Dog wrote:2. Corporal punishment has been shown to cause violence and anti-social behaviour, has been linked to psychological problems, and may be associated with slower cognitive development and lower grades.
Excessive punishment, I can see doing this, but what about those who use it sparingly? I am sure they don't study those cases, because it wouldn't support this.

This implication is that most people are dumber because of this, and I find this to be absolutely absurd, since 99% of the people I went to school with, were spanked. Now children are spanked less, but there is poorer discipline and spoiled, entitled kids, who lack respect for elders. What do you want?

I was spanked, as were pretty much everyone I know, and those spanked did not get lower grades, and didn't suffer cognitive development. I think you, and others, are mistaking child abuse for the rare "spanking". If a child is spanked daily, then that's abuse, as the parent isn't using it as the "capital punishment" of child discipline.

I am sure if they had done a study on my "spankings" they'd be really disappointed that the results wouldn't match their research.

Pants of Dog wrote:3. It doesn’t work.
I am sorry, but I find this argument to be nonsensical. It does work. Even mentioning a spanking sees a reversal of attitude and adherence to discipline. People would not have been using this forever if it did not work.

As for how enforceable the law is... It's not. It's ridiculous.
#14891130
Teaching children that violence is the correct response to someone doing things you don't like probably isn't the best way to raise mentally normal people. Maybe the widespread child beating is one of the reasons that the yanks have so many school shootings? It would make sense.
#14891156
Godstud wrote:I disagree. Children don't have a right to vote, and a great many other rights that adults have. Again, we are not talking about child abuse.


Arguments can be made as to why children do not have the right to vote (i.e. they do not have the wisdom and experience to intelligently hold government accountable) but no such argument can be made for not hitting them.

Excessive punishment, I can see doing this, but what about those who use it sparingly? I am sure they don't study those cases, because it wouldn't support this.

This implication is that most people are dumber because of this, and I find this to be absolutely absurd, since 99% of the people I went to school with, were spanked. Now children are spanked less, but there is poorer discipline and spoiled, entitled kids, who lack respect for elders. What do you want?

I was spanked, as were pretty much everyone I know, and those spanked did not get lower grades, and didn't suffer cognitive development. I think you, and others, are mistaking child abuse for the rare "spanking". If a child is spanked daily, then that's abuse, as the parent isn't using it as the "capital punishment" of child discipline.

I am sure if they had done a study on my "spankings" they'd be really disappointed that the results wouldn't match their research.


Studies that only look at spanking and do not look at abuse also show the link with aggression, violence, and anti-social behaviour. Obviously, less severe and less frequent spankings will result in less violence, aggression, and anti-social behaviour, but only causing a small amount of harm is not a good argument for spanking, and is still an argument against spanking.

I find that today’s kids are less violent, less anti-social, and have more self discipline than when I went to school, and I think the evidence supports this.

I am sorry, but I find this argument to be nonsensical. It does work. Even mentioning a spanking sees a reversal of attitude and adherence to discipline. People would not have been using this forever if it did not work.

As for how enforceable the law is... It's not. It's ridiculous.


It does not work.

    A new analysis of two decades of research on the long-term effects of physical punishment in children concludes that spanking doesn’t work and can actually wreak havoc on kids’ long-term development, according to an article published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

    Studying physical punishment is difficult for researchers, who can’t randomly assign children to groups that are hit and those that aren’t. Instead, they follow children over many years, monitor how much they’re spanked, and then take measure of their aggression over time. “We find children who are physically punished get more aggressive over time and those who are not physically punished get less aggressive over time,” says Joan Durrant, the article’s lead author and a child clinical psychologist and professor of family social sciences at the University of Manitoba.

    In fact, regardless of the age of the children or the size of the sample, none of more than 80 studies on the effects of physical punishment have succeeded in finding positive associations. “If someone were to hit us to change our behavior, it might harm our relationship with that person. We might feel resentful,” says Durrant. “It’s no different for children. It’s not a constructive thing to do.”

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/06/w ... esnt-work/


Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yeah? Your point? Bring on the spanks muthafucka!
..l.


As long as we agree that spanking does teach children that violence is a good method of resolving conflict, and that this belief is also part of the rationalisation for shooting one’s classmates.
#14891237
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that spanking does teach children that violence is a good method of resolving conflict


Why wouldn't I agree to this? Thats why I do it. :eh:

The entire premise of spanking is that a controlled form of violence and a limited amount of pain will result from disobedience, deceit, destruction, or disrespect.

Violence is a good means of resolving disputes (I don't see how this is really debatable): War is a case-in-point, but I am also an advocate of teaching your children, early on, how to fight. Fighting saved my life in high school, in fact, I almost became a school shooter myself if it weren't for the intervention of my father teaching me how to defend myself with my fists. I thank God every day for that man. This is a case where allowing masculine and violent conflict resolution can prevent extreme build-ups of non-diffused hatred which, once it spills over, could lead to mass-murder.

Fighting is natural, human, and healthy in my opinion. If my boys want to duke it out when they are teenagers, i'll send them into the backyard and make some simple rules and let them hash it out, and then it will be over. They'll live and when they get older no one will fuck with them.

Some of my best friends in high school were my former bullies, that after I kicked their ass, respected me and brought me into their in-group. Imagine if I never had those fights? I could of shot those guys out of hatred for all the terrible things they had done to me.....I prefer the fighting and hitting.


Image

Pants-of-dog wrote:and that this belief is also part of the rationalisation for shooting one’s classmates.


....and this horseshit, fallacy of the false equivalency.

Not all violence is the same, just as not all wars are the same.

Here are examples of morally justifiable violence:

1. Warfare done to end a genocide or defend your nation from invasion is morally justified violence.

2. Defending yourself from bullies is morally justified violence.

3. Executing a heinous mass-murdering child-rapist is morally justified violence.

4. Swatting a dog with a newspaper for shitting on your new carpet is morally justified violence.

5. Spanking your kid for trying to push his sibling onto a busy highway is morally justified violence.

What is not? Here is another list:

1. Shooting innocent people because your bat-shit crazy is NOT morally justified violence. (the fact that you would equate this to spanking is incredibly ignorant).

2. Beating your kid with a well-chain (like how my grand-dad was abused) for accidentally spilling his sippy cup is NOT morally justified violence. (note: no one is defending this sort of shit)

3. Punching someone in the face because you don't like his ideas is NOT morally justified violence (though you would probably be fine with punching "racists" solely in light of their views)

4. Invading a peaceful nation to genocide them for no reason other than your don't like their hair color is NOT morally justified violence.

Also, as an aside, the Abrahamic faiths (and I believe Confucianism too if I am not mistaken) all require their practitioners to spank their children by divine or moral command, this is also a religious freedom issue, and the majority of mankind affirms these religions which teach such regarding child discipline.

Also, anecdotally, I have NEVER met a kid who was not smacked as a kid that did not turn out to be a spoiled and disrespectful little shit. Ultimately this seems to be because the parents cannot effectively coerce them to behave and as they get older they lack respect.

Typical modern parent-child conversation:

Dad: "Johnny, go sit in the corner"

Johnny: "NO!" (this is where it would have ended in my house, "No" is an automatic ass-smack)

Dad: "Johnny, Go sit in the corner!"

Johnny: "No, You can't make me!"

Dad: "Well....um...I will hold you in the corner" (besides being an inconvenient surrender to a fucking child, could also be a form of violence and is definitely a form of coercion and WTF else are you going to do?).

or you don't do anything except threaten not to give them dessert, or take their games or something like that.....but some kids don't give a fuck, then what?

I find parents with high-strung kids are always yelling and not getting shit done, there is a reason for this.

If you take away spanking, or any form of controlled violence, then you invariably remove parental coercion and you fail to teach children the seriousness of criminal activity (which is taught as a microcosm in the home).

To be honest, I hardly have to spank anymore because when I did it with the older ones, it was consistent enough and serious enough that they entered into good behavior that the younger ones follow now out of habit. Spanking must be more often and more serious with the old ones and started very early, then as your family gets older and larger, spanking will only have to be done rarely for the most serious infractions. Hell, my butt-cheeks still pucker when my old man raises his voice and hes in his fucking 60s. The old codger still scares me and would still scare me if I was an MMA champion.

My three oldest are 8, 6, and 4 (just turned 5). They put all the groceries away, completely care for the dog and the chickens (I mean completely), they wash, dry, and put away the dishes, they run the washer and the dryer, set the table, and do all their school work, and they always clean up their messes and they do this without me having to be asked twice. This is in spite of the fact that they are hyper, stubborn, and poor-tempered like their parents. How is this accomplished? Because they know the seriousness of the consequences....but also, because they know that good behavior is as much rewarded as bad behavior is punished.

When my dad was a kid, they respected their teachers and feared them because if you misbehaved you would get paddled, then the principal would paddle you, and then when you got home your parents paddled you. So, you didn't try to piss off your teachers in school just for the fun of it.

Nowadays, kids can stay on their smart-phones in class (at the school I went to, the teachers are not permitted to confiscate the phone) and they can basically tell the teachers to fuck off.

I'm sorry, but since spanking has declined, terrible instances of hazing, bullying, dis-repecting elders and teachers, and yes even school-shootings, have ALL increased, not decreased, so for you to make such a correlation is incredibly irresponsible and its more likely the opposite.

Take a big whiff POD....do you smell that? Its called common-sense and it has worked in parenting for 6,000 years of using physical discipline on children. Lets not reinvent the wheel on this one because some lib-tard hippy-dippy psychologists want to weaponize science against our boys. I see the world their expertise has built.... Fuck them.
#14891242
I think the presumption is that people who spank their kids ONLY use spanking as a punishment. This couldn't be further from the truth. If you know anything about management, you know that there is Persuasion, Coercion, and finally Threat. This applies to children, as well. Spanking is the final gambit, as it were, not the only punishment. When used as the ONLY disciplinary measure, then YES, it is going to be terrible.

I still disagree with what you've posted @Pants-of-dog if only because experience has showed me otherwise, and puts your studies into question.

Pants of dog wrote: that this belief is also part of the rationalisation for shooting one’s classmates.
Image
#14891253
Godstud wrote:I still disagree with what you've posted @Pants-of-dog if only because experience has showed me otherwise, and puts your studies into question.


There is a bias among cosmopolitian psychologists against traditional practices and their samples are misleading.

Firstly, all of the anti-spanking studies justify their conclusion in that the children grow up believing that violence can be appropriate: So what? This begs the questions as to whether violence can ever be appropriate and so their study assumes that all violence is automatically wrong to draw its conclusion instead of proving that premise.

Also, these studies omit studies that show that the so-called negative effects of spanking depended on the parental environment in which spanking occurred. Which should be obvious, but these agenda-driven folks decided to cherry pick.

Here is the REAL data:


Evidence Favoring the Use of Disciplinary Spanking

There is a paucity of published research focusing on ordinary, non-abusive disciplinary spanking of young children administered by loving, well-intentioned parents. There is, however, some quality research indicating short and long term efficacy of disciplinary spanking.

Short-Term Studies

The only studies that meet the most rigorous requirements for evidence-based medical practice are clinical field trials conducted by Roberts with clinically oppositional children.,[ii],[iii] To determine which back-up or enforcer procedure was most effective in controlling a child’s escape from time-out, a spank procedure was tested against 3 other procedures in randomized clinical field trials. The two-swat spank procedure was found to be the most effective, most preferred and most practical of all measures tested. Forehand and McMahon in their research similarly found “a mild spanking to be the most feasible back-up for the child leaving the time-out chair.” [iv] Even though these studies focused on spanking only as an enforcer of time-out, they are significant for other reasons:

They are well-designed, randomized, clinical field studies that compare spanking to other responses.
The problem behavior of noncompliance with time-out is very similar to other types of problem behaviors a defiant child might display. These studies offer evidence of spanking’s effectiveness in changing problem behavior.
The effectiveness of time-out is crucial to most behavioral parenting programs. The spank procedure can strengthen time-out’s effectiveness and reduce a parent’s need to use spanking independently or primarily.

Long-Term Studies

The long-term effects of any disciplinary measure, including spanking, are enormously influenced by the parental and environmental factors within the disciplinary process. Baumrind conducted a decade-long prospective study of families with children ages 4-9 years. She identified three general parenting styles and evaluated the effects these styles had upon the children’s development. The following parenting styles were identified:

[i]Authoritarian Parents were more controlling, more restrictive, less inclined to explain, more punitive, detached, and less warm. To discipline they used fear, little encouragement and often corporal punishment.

Permissive Parents were markedly less controlling, minimally demanding, freely granting of the child’s demands, uninvolved with the child, and benign toward the child’s impulses and actions. To discipline they used ridicule, guilt provocation, little power and reasoning, and rarely corporal punishment.

Authoritative Parents employed a combination of firm control and positive encouragement of a child’s independence. They affirmed the child’s qualities and, yet, set a standard for future conduct. They made reasonable demands of their children and promoted respect for authority. They were more consistent with the discipline. To discipline they used reasoning, power, reinforcement to achieve objectives, and some corporal punishment.

Some of the study’s findings included:

The Authoritative parents who balanced firm control with encouragement reared the most socially responsible and assertive children, i.e. achievement orientation, friendliness toward peers, cooperativeness with adults, social dominance, nonconforming behavior and purposiveness.

The Authoritative parents favored corporal punishment over other negative sanctions.


Permissive parents (both mothers and fathers) admitted to “explosive attacks of rage in which they inflicted more pain or injury upon the child than they had intended.” They became more “violent because they felt they could neither control the child’s behavior nor tolerate its effect upon themselves.”

Nonbrutal punishment, including physical expressions, by loving parents who used correct methodology achieved superior behavior control as well as:

More rapid re-establishment of affectional relationship between parent and child following an emotional release.
Less guilt reactions to transgression since an unpleasant consequence is imposed.
Punishment is an effective means of controlling childhood behavior, and is not intrinsically harmful to the child.
Baumrind published in 2012 a 10-year follow-up study of the outcomes of authoritative parenting. Her findings confirmed that the authoritative style is optimal.

Guarendi found that 70% of the parents of “outstanding” (self-motivated, strong character, considerate of others, and high morality) students employed some physical punishment in the rearing of their children.[v] Some relied upon it often and others rarely used it. He found, “Spanking was generally considered to be one tool in a parent’s discipline repertoire.”

Larzelere and Kuhn’s 2005 meta-analysis of a quarter-century of literature uniquely compared physical punishment of children with alternative disciplinary measures, such as time-out, reasoning, privilege removal, physical restraint, and scolding.37 To address the methodological problem inherent in grouping all forms of physical punishment, they distinguished the following four categories: conditional spanking (used under limited conditions), customary physical punishment (typical manner of use by ordinary parents), overly severe physical punishment, and predominant physical punishment. Additionally, Larzelere and Kuhn’s methods took into account selection biases, a confounding problem inherent in most studies of parental discipline since parents use disciplinary tactics to the extent that they perceive behavior problems in their children. The review’s findings are summarized below.

Conditional spanking was associated with better child outcomes than were 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics, with no differences in outcomes compared to the other three alternatives.

Conditional spanking and customary physical punishment were never associated with worse outcomes than any other alternative tactic.

The meta-analysis results favored conditional spanking over nonphysical punishments in general for reducing defiance and antisocial behavior.

Customary physical punishment was associated with less substance abuse than was non-contact punishment in one large retrospective study. Otherwise, customary physical punishment was equally as effective as any alternative disciplinary tactic.

All types of physical punishment were associated with lower rates of antisocial behavior than were alternative disciplinary tactics.

Physical punishment predicted more adverse child outcomes than alternative tactics only when it was used severely or predominantly.

No evidence was found that physical punishment was more strongly associated with physical aggression than other disciplinary tactics.


Conclusion
In a positive family setting, spanking has been found to be a positive predictor of outcome. Tennant even found that the childhood antecedents that were most associated with non-use of illegal drugs by young men were being spanked as a child, attending church and having a “happy” parental marriage.[vi]


References

[i]. Roberts MW & Powers SW. Adjusting chair timeout enforcement procedures for oppositional children. Behavioral Therapy. 1990;21:257-271.

[ii]. Bean AW & Roberts MW. The effect of timeout release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance. J Abn Child Psych. 1981;9:95-105

[iii]. Day DE & Roberts MW. An analysis of the physical punishment component of a parent training program. J Abn Child Psychol. 1983;11:141-152.

[iv]. Forehand RL & McMahon RJ. Helping the noncompliant child. 1981;pp 79-80. New York:Guilford Press.

[v] Guarendi R. Back to the Family. 1990;215-222. New York: Simon & Schuster.

[vi] Tennant FS, Jr., Detels R, & Clark V. Some childhood antecedents of drug and alcohol abuse. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1975;102:377-385.




http://goodparent.org/corporal-punishme ... -spanking/
#14891424
Mark this day with a stone. I agree with VS with regard to the notion that spanking teaches kids that violence is OK. My first inclination is to disagree with the premise. I think a spanked child can still know that violence is not a preferable way to resolve conflicts. But VS is also right in his assertion that a child should understand where violence is justified, by whom and when.

The world is a violent place. Children should learn to protect themselves from bullies very early on. They should know about danger and violence. The last thing we need is a generation of wimps.

And since there is no profit, capitalism has no s[…]

The US military leadership says that to protect th[…]

Apparently Hindsite is a true American, and defin[…]

EU-BREXIT

Three Years On: Still Divided Today marks […]