I read about "hot saucing" on the internet

[Beerina]

Punishment has to be instant to work. Calling the bad dog to you, then spanking him, is only teaching the dog that bad things happen when he obeys.

I think an instant swat will accomplish a lot more, faster, and with less emotional damage, than a delayed squirt of hot sauce.

A leather strap, with the end split, hanging on the wall above the dinner table, not only causes long term welts, but emotional damage. That is NOT an instant swat.

I think I heard in a psychology class that a dog's short-term memory is only 2.6 seconds (god knows how they figured that out) so you really have to jump on the "No!" or they won't be able to associate it. But in any case, waiting several minutes is completely pointless.

 

[Ryokan]

Is there a law against a parent spanking their child?

In most civilized countries there is, yeah.

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

 

[EatatJoes]

Do you feel the same way about using the word 'abortion' rather than 'murder'?

It is my understand that "murder" has a specific legal meaning. It's not murder if you didn't end the life of someone illegally. I think there is even a question as to whether a fetus, legally, is considered a "someone"...

 

[Beth]

It is my understand that "murder" has a specific legal meaning. It's not murder if you didn't end the life of someone illegally. I think there is even a question as to whether a fetus, legally, is considered a "someone"...

That doesn't answer my question. Yes, there is a specific legal definition. There are also times and places where abortion is illegal and covered under that definition. However, I can phrase the question differently.

To say spanking and demand that someone refrain from saying what it really is, is simply trying to polish a turd.

Do you feel the same about about the phrases 'aborting pregnancies' versus 'killing the unborn'?

If you don't feel the same about it, why not?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly, and the fact that some people insist on using an emotionally loaded phrase rather than a more emotionally neutral one shows that they're not interested in sober debate. Period.

Or one could say, the fact that some people insist on focusing on the red herring: denying the fact spanking is hitting; and, claiming the term, hitting, is too emotionally loaded and not neutral enough for said person's taste shows that that person is not interested in sober debate. Period.

What you are trying to do, Cave, is make the debate about a perceived insult. But the debate includes the issue that spanking is hitting.

 

[Cavemonster]

Or one could say, the fact that some people insist on focusing on the red herring: denying the fact spanking is hitting; and, claiming the term, hitting, is too emotionally loaded and not neutral enough for said person's taste shows that that person is not interested in sober debate. Period.

What you are trying to do, Cave, is make the debate about a perceived insult. But the debate includes the issue that spanking is hitting.

When you make a point in a debate, you make it cleanly and clearly.
When you embed that point in the language of the debate, and insist on that language, you're using rhetoric rather than communication.

It's often very useful in a public debate, but within the context of a conversation, the insistence on using rhetorical methods that take content out of the realm of what is discussed and weaseling it into the presentation is a hidden appeal to emotion among other things.

I wouldn't want to debate anyone on the civil war if they insisted on calling it the "War of Northern aggression" either. If you insist on having your emotional reaction embedded in the language of the debate, you're welcome to it, but I know it's not a very good use of my time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting that this was just kind of blipped over.

Hot sauce is a food. It's edible, non-toxic, designed to be taken internally. The sensation and taste it creates in the mouth can be unpleasant for some but it's not "pain" in the sense of spanking or burning like some people here are calling it, any more than the extreme sour taste of a lemon is pain.

Some hot sauce is not as mild as you are implying, especially to a young child.

And there is a difference between inflicting pain purely for its deterrent effect and providing discipline that is intended to teach a child life skills, not that Mom and Dad inflict pain if they are not obeyed.

Discipline should teach, not simply deter. Kids who learn, don't do [X] or my parents will inflict pain do not learn to not do [X] when the child doesn't think the parents will find out. Discipline that teaches has a more effective long term outcome.

The street is dangerous is not conveyed by: going in the street gets me spanked. I know it seems like the child should connect the two, street and danger, because there is a danger of being spanked. But from the child's perspective, the lesson was, Mom or Dad wants obedience. Why would they hit me if they cared about me getting hurt? A better message would be to limit freedom and choice. I can't trust you to stay out of the street so I have to limit your ability to choose to run into the street. Loss of freedom is a very effective means of discipline, especially if other kids the child can see are free to choose.

You want socially unacceptable behavior like cussing or hitting to result in social withdrawal, not more hitting. When spanking is used as the consequence of a child acting out, the child learns, well I didn't get the kind of attention I wanted, but I did get attention. Unacceptable behavior is when time outs make sense. You don't behave, you don't get more attention, you get less.

There are dozens and dozens of kinds of outcomes besides causing fear or pain that teach rather than simply deter through punishment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When you make a point in a debate, you make it cleanly and clearly.
When you embed that point in the language of the debate, and insist on that language, you're using rhetoric rather than communication.

It's often very useful in a public debate, but within the context of a conversation, the insistence on using rhetorical methods that take content out of the realm of what is discussed and weaseling it into the presentation is a hidden appeal to emotion among other things.

I wouldn't want to debate anyone on the civil war if they insisted on calling it the "War of Northern aggression" either. If you insist on having your emotional reaction embedded in the language of the debate, you're welcome to it, but I know it's not a very good use of my time.

OK, let's get to the core of the issue then, since you can't see how you are avoiding the discussion.

What is the goal of the spanking? Either it hurts, or it is intended to make the child fear it will hurt? Is that true or not?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In most civilized countries there is, yeah.

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

There are a number of articles about how it took more than a change in the law, but also a social education program when corporal punishment was outlawed on Sweden. It's an interesting read as a history of social change.


On a separate note, what is it with Christians and right wingers who insist the use of pain and fear to discipline children is such a good thing?

The Folly of Sweden's State Controlled Families

I guess this belongs in another thread, sorry. I found it when looking for an article on the history of Sweden's punishment law.

 

[Roboramma]

When you make a point in a debate, you make it cleanly and clearly.
When you embed that point in the language of the debate, and insist on that language, you're using rhetoric rather than communication.

It's often very useful in a public debate, but within the context of a conversation, the insistence on using rhetorical methods that take content out of the realm of what is discussed and weaseling it into the presentation is a hidden appeal to emotion among other things.

I wouldn't want to debate anyone on the civil war if they insisted on calling it the "War of Northern aggression" either. If you insist on having your emotional reaction embedded in the language of the debate, you're welcome to it, but I know it's not a very good use of my time.

Exactly. Spanking may or may not be a valid or useful or humane, or whatever method of discipline for children. But it does mean something very specific. Whether or not "hitting" accurately describes that is another question but certainly spanking does refer to what we're talking about. So what possible problem can anyone have with using a word to refer to exactly what it refers to?

Hitting is more broad. If the discussion were about the entire spectrum of hitting then certainly it would be useful to use that word. If it's only about the part of the spectrum that is entirely contained within the meaning of the word spanking I can't see any reason not to use that word, except, as you say, rhetoric.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How does spanking achieve the goal the parent seeks?

Does it do so by inflicting pain, regardless of how mild or severe? Is mild pain something besides pain? Is calling the technique, inflicting pain, also misleading?
Does spanking achieve the parent's goal by creating fear?

 

[Beth]

How does spanking achieve the goal the parent seeks?

Used sparingly, it will cause children pay attention and modify their behavior. It can also be done quickly and without much effort on the part of the parent. When I was a child, it could be used anywhere, even in public. My understanding is that as the frequency of use increases, it's effectiveness decreases. So the parents who spank least get the most benefit from it while the parents who spank frequently get little to none.

In general, I agree that it isn't always effective and I never it found it necessary myself.

Does it do so by inflicting pain, regardless of how mild or severe? Is mild pain something besides pain? Is calling the technique, inflicting pain, also misleading?
Does spanking achieve the parent's goal by creating fear?

My recollection from being spanked as a child is that it was mainly the pain. Fear only came into it with anticipation and my mother always administered spankings immediately upon discovering the bad behavior so fear didn't come into it with her. Occasionally, when we were especially bad, Daddy would administer a second spanking when he got home and heard about what we had done. So I guess both are a part of it.

I don't feel spankings did me or my siblings any harm, but we have loving parents who never actually hurt us and did not continue it when we grew older. It was also accepted in our community. Spanking was likely the most commonly administered disciplinary action with young children. Time outs hadn't been invented yet.

At any rate, I know you don't think that spankings are necessarily harmful. I agree that they can be. We simply don't have much to disagree about on this issue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Used sparingly, it will cause children pay attention and modify their behavior. It can also be done quickly and without much effort on the part of the parent. When I was a child, it could be used anywhere, even in public. My understanding is that as the frequency of use increases, it's effectiveness decreases. So the parents who spank least get the most benefit from it while the parents who spank frequently get little to none.

In general, I agree that it isn't always effective and I never it found it necessary myself.

My recollection from being spanked as a child is that it was mainly the pain. Fear only came into it with anticipation and my mother always administered spankings immediately upon discovering the bad behavior so fear didn't come into it with her. Occasionally, when we were especially bad, Daddy would administer a second spanking when he got home and heard about what we had done. So I guess both are a part of it.

I don't feel spankings did me or my siblings any harm, but we have loving parents who never actually hurt us and did not continue it when we grew older. It was also accepted in our community. Spanking was likely the most commonly administered disciplinary action with young children. Time outs hadn't been invented yet.

Sounds like it is painfully difficult to be honest about the goal of spanking children.

"it will cause children pay attention and modify their behavior."
By what mechanism?

"it was mainly the pain. Fear only came into it with anticipation"
Took a whole paragraph to get at what I asked and you disguised it as your personal experience as the spankee rather than discussing your goal as the spanker.

At any rate, I know you don't think that spankings are necessarily harmful. I agree that they can be. We simply don't have much to disagree about on this issue.

And yet you were just a tad reluctant to say, the goal of spanking was to inflict pain and instill anticipatory fear.

I'm trying to get at the denial that is expressed when people try to change the spanking discussion to, you are using loaded words.

 

[Beth]

S
"it was mainly the pain. Fear only came into it with anticipation"
Took a whole paragraph to get at what I asked and you disguised it as your personal experience as the spankee rather than discussing your goal as the spanker.
And yet you were just a tad reluctant to say, the goal of spanking was to inflict pain and instill anticipatory fear.

I'm trying to get at the denial that is expressed when people try to change the spanking discussion to, you are using loaded words.

I never spanked my children, so my only experience is as the spankee.
Denial because I spent took an entire paragraph to answer your question? That seems a stretch to me. I was just reflecting on my own experiences. Sometimes it takes me a few sentences to completely express myself.

And how did my answer relate to the discussion on using loaded words? BTW, do you object to pro-life individuals using the word 'murder' in a discussion about abortion? Seems to me the same type of issue regarding loaded language. One word is specific to what's being discussed, the other is a more general term that evokes emotional reactions from those who disagree with you. I consider both to be examples of using loaded words in those contexts.

Finally, I don't think the goal of spanking was to inflict pain and instill anticipatory fear. The goal of spanking was to change the child's behavior. Pain and fear are the mechanisms that spanking invokes to do so. They are not the goal.

 

[dirtywick]

I think spanking has some use in children that haven't developed enough to understand other forms of deterrence.

 

[Ryokan]

In my country, spanking your child is illegal and will be prosecuted as assault. It's also seen as quite a barbaric way to treat your children. Most people will react to people spanking their children in the same was as striking them in the face would. No matter what fancy words you use to flower it up, spanking is striking your child with your hand against their body, with the intent to cause pain. That's illegal to do against an adult, so why on earth should it be legal to do it against a child?

Barbarians.

 

[sadhatter]

Do you feel the same way about using the word 'abortion' rather than 'murder'?

Your trying to say hitting has as sinister meaning as murder? REally? When is the last time anyone saw the headline " Hundreds hit in rawanda.". Please, let's not bring this debate into the realm of the absurd, okay?

 

[Beth]

Your trying to say hitting has as sinister meaning as murder? REally?

No. I'm saying that substituting the word 'hitting' for 'spanking' is indicative of an attempt to arouse the emotions of those who disagree with you in the same way that substituting the word 'murder' for the the word 'abortion' is when pro-lifers use it.

I also think that if you want to have a rational discussion, then you need to eschew words that arouse an emotional response in those who disagree. When people consistently use such words, I assume they are not interested in having a rational discussion but want to get the emotional response.

 

[sadhatter]

No. I'm saying that substituting the word 'hitting' for 'spanking' is indicative of an attempt to arouse the emotions of those who disagree with you in the same way that substituting the word 'murder' for the the word 'abortion' is when pro-lifers use it.

I also think that if you want to have a rational discussion, then you need to eschew words that arouse an emotional response in those who disagree. When people consistently use such words, I assume they are not interested in having a rational discussion but want to get the emotional response.

Do i really have to spell this out?

By the definition of murder, there is debate that abortion would fit in the category. With spanking, there is no debate that it falls into the category of hitting. A great example would be if i spanked, lets say, my girlfriend out of anger ( Rooster Cogburn Style) there is no doubt the police would charge me with assault for the act.

Calling spanking hitting is simply calling a spade a spade. The fact is the people who support it simply don't want to be backed into the corner of saying " I don't hit my kids that hard." because they know how that sounds.

Unless your willing to say a spouse spanking their partner out of anger wouldn't be considered assault, you have no case here. Just because it is being done to children doesn't suddenly make it not hitting. I mean for crap sake, that is the same logic used at the start of the industrial era to give children the poor jobs.

 

[dirtywick]

No matter what fancy words you use to flower it up, spanking is striking your child with your hand against their body, with the intent to cause pain.

That shouldn't be, and isn't necessarily, the intent of a spanking.

That's illegal to do against an adult, so why on earth should it be legal to do it against a child?

Barbarians.

A lot of disciplinary measures taken against children are illegal against adults also. I don't think it's a good measuring stick of parenting.