A lot here say it's acceptable to spank in certain cases.. Here are some of those cases and my response..
Child runs off into busy traffic..
If a child is at an age/limited understanding of basic cause and effect, how can we expect them to understand the cause and effect approach of spanking? They're thinking, "Ooowee, look at those big objects traveling really fast, I'd like to get closer!", all the sudden their parent is screaming, running towards them like a mad man (understandably so), and then grabs them and pulls them back into the yard.. At this stage, the kid is most definitely frightened as fuck, confused, and likely crying. Most parents after all of that, would then proceed to hit them. Wat? Instead, if they're not at an age in which they don't understand you telling them why we don't run into a road, how about you keep a closer eye on them? Hitting them will not solve anything, as they're clearly not at an age to understand cause an effect. If anyone needs hit, (which they don't, ever except in cases of self defense), it's the parent for being neglectful.
"I purposely destroyed my sister's waterbed in retaliation for something stupid -- he smacked me right across the face."
Did he do anything else? Did he make you clean up the water? Make you work to buy a new bed? Try to figure out what exactly happened, try to get to the root of the problem and tell you why that type of reactionary response is never justified? I'm willing to bet if all those options were exhausted, smacking you across the face wouldn't have been needed to make you never do something like that again. The problem is he used violence to make you avoid destroying property, rather than help make you want to avoid destroying property because it's wrong. Psychologically this leads to a form of behavior motivated by the fear of hierarchical authority, rather than a form of behavior motivated by what's right and wrong.
Using violence to solve problems (a) teaches children to use violence to solve problems and (b) remain obedient citizens under the threat of authority.
Child runs off into busy traffic..
If a child is at an age/limited understanding of basic cause and effect, how can we expect them to understand the cause and effect approach of spanking? They're thinking, "Ooowee, look at those big objects traveling really fast, I'd like to get closer!", all the sudden their parent is screaming, running towards them like a mad man (understandably so), and then grabs them and pulls them back into the yard.. At this stage, the kid is most definitely frightened as fuck, confused, and likely crying. Most parents after all of that, would then proceed to hit them. Wat? Instead, if they're not at an age in which they don't understand you telling them why we don't run into a road, how about you keep a closer eye on them? Hitting them will not solve anything, as they're clearly not at an age to understand cause an effect. If anyone needs hit, (which they don't, ever except in cases of self defense), it's the parent for being neglectful.
"I purposely destroyed my sister's waterbed in retaliation for something stupid -- he smacked me right across the face."
Did he do anything else? Did he make you clean up the water? Make you work to buy a new bed? Try to figure out what exactly happened, try to get to the root of the problem and tell you why that type of reactionary response is never justified? I'm willing to bet if all those options were exhausted, smacking you across the face wouldn't have been needed to make you never do something like that again. The problem is he used violence to make you avoid destroying property, rather than help make you want to avoid destroying property because it's wrong. Psychologically this leads to a form of behavior motivated by the fear of hierarchical authority, rather than a form of behavior motivated by what's right and wrong.
Using violence to solve problems (a) teaches children to use violence to solve problems and (b) remain obedient citizens under the threat of authority.
