I read about "hot saucing" on the internet

[Beth]

If hitting has some connotation you don't believe spanking also has, then let's talk about the mechanism of spanking. The mechanism is to cause pain and/or instill fear, is it not?

I think so. But it's a fairly common mechanism, not limited to spanking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If a 4 year old understands that one block plus one block is two blocks, why would they not understand linear algebra?

False analogy.

Can't you come up with a real example?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think so. But it's a fairly common mechanism, not limited to spanking.

Like hot sauce and a cold shower.

A consequence the child does not like is not equivalent to pain, on the other hand.

 

[Region Rat]

False analogy.

Can't you come up with a real example?

No, it's not. You did not define what you meant by deterrent. It is obvious that there are deterrents that children will not understand at one age but will at another. How can you argue that that is not true? You can not sit a 3 year old down and explain the concept of the extreme pain and permanent disfigurement they would experience of they put their hand in a fire, but you can make them fear your reaction* when they start to put their hand in the fire. Later comes the explanation, when they can understand it.

*Note that I didn't say anything about spanking, so be careful how you respond. I'm not being flippant here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it's not. You did not define what you meant by deterrent. It is obvious that there are deterrents that children will not understand at one age but will at another. How can you argue that that is not true? You can not sit a 3 year old down and explain the concept of the extreme pain and permanent disfigurement they would experience of they put their hand in a fire, but you can make them fear your reaction* when they start to put their hand in the fire. Later comes the explanation, when they can understand it.

*Note that I didn't say anything about spanking, so be careful how you respond. I'm not being flippant here.

You are replying to what started with

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

I did not say that 4 yr olds understood everything, I said, if they understand one deterrent, why would they not understand a different deterrent?

Now you are implying I said, if they understand one deterrent, why would they not understand ALL deterrents?

If you think your only option is verbal reasoning or pain, you would be wrong.

If a young child understands a behavior results in the parent spanking the child, why would that same child not also understand a behavior results in being removed from the room? Or the behavior results in having the toy taken away, or the puppy removed to the kitchen or any number of other things more closely logical in consequence to the unwanted behavior?

 

[dirtywick]

I don't know that they'd associate being removed from the room as being a consequence of going behind the TV and pulling on cables. They need to be able to make such associations in order to understand the consequences. An unpleasant noise from their diapered butt is immediate and an easy stimulus to understand.

 

[Region Rat]

You are replying to what started with

I did not say that 4 yr olds understood everything, I said, if they understand one deterrent, why would they not understand a different deterrent?

Now you are implying I said, if they understand one deterrent, why would they not understand ALL deterrents?

If you think your only option is verbal reasoning or pain, you would be wrong.

If a young child understands a behavior results in the parent spanking the child, why would that same child not also understand a behavior results in being removed from the room? Or the behavior results in having the toy taken away, or the puppy removed to the kitchen or any number of other things more closely logical in consequence to the unwanted behavior?

I agree, there are many types of deterrence. I think you would agree that for small children, or those who may not yet understand reasoning, that the deterrence must be immediate or the association will not be formed. My point is that there may be occasions, such as the chance of severe bodily injury, where you would want to instill an aversion to the action that is being prevented. A small child would most likely not understand what injury or pain is, or how their actions would cause it.

Take the fire example. Most adults don't know what a severe burn feels like, but it wasn't until they got older that they could associate the disfigurement and pain caused by burns. How do parents keep kids from continually trying to put their hands in fires? Some parents may yell at the top of their lungs as they grab the kids away. The kid might associate fire with yelling and be afraid that Mom might yell at him again. Maybe that would work, or maybe the kid would realize that Mom always yells, and not associate it at all. On the other hand, you could smack his hand. He may associate a stinging hand with fire and keep his hand away. A stinging hand is a minor pain that is not long lasting, but to a child, it is a message that his hand may be hurt if he tries to put it in the fire. Yes, you will be able to gloat that I agree that you are hitting your child, but you are doing no damage and you are teaching a lesson. A minor stinging hand is no worse an action that yelling at a poor little child, or isolating a poor little child away from his loved ones in a corner somewhere. Sometimes emotional damage is worse than some minor physical pain. It's all in the context. There are times, ages and situations where physical contact may be the best deterrent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know that they'd associate being removed from the room as being a consequence of going behind the TV and pulling on cables. They need to be able to make such associations in order to understand the consequences. An unpleasant noise from their diapered butt is immediate and an easy stimulus to understand.

What age? It is unreasonable to expect a child under age 2 to stay away from dangerous electrical cords. That's very dangerous to expect to rely on teaching a child that age then subsequently relying on that learned lesson and being able to leave the child alone.

So let's assume you are there. You stop the child and offer an alternative. Or you put the child in a playpen. If the child is old enough to understand a boundary being crossed gets a spank, the child is old enough to understand crossing the same boundary gets his freedom restricted to the playpen.

 

[dirtywick]

It's likely you use the playpen as something other than a punishment. At that point it's just another trip to the playpen, and the two aren't associated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree, there are many types of deterrence. I think you would agree that for small children, or those who may not yet understand reasoning, that the deterrence must be immediate or the association will not be formed. My point is that there may be occasions, such as the chance of severe bodily injury, where you would want to instill an aversion to the action that is being prevented. A small child would most likely not understand what injury or pain is, or how their actions would cause it.

This is a common fallacy. A child doesn't learn [X] is dangerous because the behavior results in spanking. The child learns Mom or Dad hit me if I do [X]. After all, if spanking is the main form of discipline, it is being used for all sorts of undesired behaviors. There is no association with danger.

Take the fire example. Most adults don't know what a severe burn feels like, but it wasn't until they got older that they could associate the disfigurement and pain caused by burns. How do parents keep kids from continually trying to put their hands in fires? ...

You must not have any kids. Kids don't stick their hands in a fire to see what it feels like. They play too close to the fireplace not realizing they could fall into the fire. Or they play with matches they saw someone else light, or other kinds of dangerous behavior around fire.

The first responsibility of the parent is to make the child's environment safe. So if you are talking about very young children there should not be a fire they can stick their hands into.

If the child is older, or you are at someone else's house and there is a danger, then the child's movement needs to be restricted.

We could go on and on with these examples ad nauseum. For every single one of them, without fail, there is an alternative discipline that does not involve inflicting physical pain. Parents do however, have to make an effort to learn the methods. Spanking is lazy parenting, IMO.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's likely you use the playpen as something other than a punishment. At that point it's just another trip to the playpen, and the two aren't associated.

You are missing the KEY point, it is not "punishment". The whole concept of punishment is demanding obedience, demanding control. You are the parent, you don't need to demand obedience. You are bigger and more intelligent. You have total control. What you need is to guide and teach your child how to behave without your control. And it is a slow process.

Restriction to the playpen is a natural consequence of not being trusted outside the playpen.

 

[dirtywick]

You are missing the KEY point, it is not "punishment". The whole concept of punishment is demanding obedience, demanding control. You are the parent, you don't need to demand obedience. You are bigger and more intelligent. You have total control. What you need is to guide and teach your child how to behave without your control. And it is a slow process.

Restriction to the playpen is a natural consequence of not being trusted outside the playpen.

I thought we were talking about a child's ability to make associations with actions and consequences at young ages. This has nothing to do with that.

-edit-

Sorry, this might have sounded rude. I just don't want to debate the semantics of punishment, redirection, corrective behavior, etc. I just want to stay on track with what I brought up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought we were talking about a child's ability to make associations with actions and consequences at young ages. This has nothing to do with that.

-edit-

Sorry, this might have sounded rude. I just don't want to debate the semantics of punishment, redirection, corrective behavior, etc. I just want to stay on track with what I brought up.

I thought I was clear but I'll repeat myself.

Child too young to have a conversation with parent about risk does something potentially dangerous.
Parent spanks child.
Child learns if I do [X] Mom/Dad gets angry, spanks me.

The child is learning being spanked means Mom/Dad is upset with the child's behavior. Why are you upset your child did something potentially dangerous? Was it their fault? The spanking is supposed to teach and the parent isn't really angry with the child according to the spanking advocates in this discussion. And this child who supposedly isn't capable of sophisticated reasoning is supposed to recognize the spanking is not because the parent was angry with the child, but because the behavior would have resulted in worse pain.

Think about that for a minute. Think about the phrase, "because I said so".



The spanked child may get it that the parent doesn't want said behavior. But there is nothing in that lesson, despite the apparent association of dangerous behavior with spanking pain, that the child can connect to [X] behavior being dangerous.

If you were an alien who didn't understand a particular danger and someone hit you to convey that message, what message would you perceive? You would perceive that whatever you did, someone didn't want you to do. You would not have a clue why they didn't want you to do it. There is nothing that says the spanking pain is a clue to the danger the pain was intended to prevent.

Even if you don't agree that spanking sends the wrong message, it should still be apparent that spanking does not imply danger. It implies the person in control doesn't like said behavior. Why should getting angry at the child convey the parent cares the child is in danger? All spanking conveys is the parent expects obedience.


Now take that same child doing that same potentially dangerous thing. This time instead of hitting the child, the parent merely removes the potential danger, either by putting the child out of reach of the dangerous behavior or by removing the dangerous thing from the child's reach. The parent also says at the time, said behavior is dangerous so I am preventing said danger from occurring.

What does that child learn? In the short term, the child learns if I do [X] Mom/Dad stops me. That is exactly the same thing the spanked child learns but without the added baggage that Mom/Dad are angry with me. If you are not angry with the child, isn't learning that the behavior is not allowed what your ultimate goal is? Children naturally want to please their parents. Parents who think they need to spank to get a child to obey don't often realize how strong of a desire to please the parents a child has.

Mom/Dad who love said child have always protected said child from danger. Now, when the child is old enough to reason, and a parent says, "I don't want you to do that because it is dangerous", the child knows that is consistent with what has always been the case. Mom/Dad doesn't get mad at me when I do something dangerous, Mom/Dad protects me from said danger.

What does fear add? If you expect the child to not do [X] out of fear, are you going to rely on that in place of supervision of the child? Remember, this is a child that is supposedly too young to reason so at a very young age, the parent needs to be there to protect the child. The chance learned fear is going to protect a child when the parent is accidentally absent is not reliable. So you'd be trading a shaky benefit for a great loss as the following explains.

As the child increases the ability to reason, the child begins to connect dangerous behavior the parent prevents to the parent protecting the child from said behavior, not to the parent geting angry at the child for said behavior. Parents who learned more effective ways of teaching children teach the child, a behavior is dangerous, not a behavior pisses off Mom/Dad. By the time the child really is old enough to reason, the trust gained results in the child believing Mom/Dad don't want this behavior because it is dangerous. The child does not learn, Mom/Dad doesn't want this behavior because Mom/Dad said so.


The other lesson spanking conveys is, said behavior results in Mom/Dad spanking me, when they know about said behavior. So if Mom/Dad don't know about said behavior, what other reason is there for me to not do said behavior? Or, Mom's/Dad's threats of spanking no longer intimidate me. So what other reason do I have for not doing said behavior?

 

[Beth]

Like hot sauce and a cold shower.

Among others

A consequence the child does not like is not equivalent to pain, on the other hand.

Quite true. If you'll recall, I agree with you that spanking isn't necessary. Other forms of discipline can be used.

 

[dirtywick]

Skeptic Ginger, thanks. I don't know that spanking necessarily conveys anger and inflicts pain. If it doesn't, which it needn't, then it's removing a child with emphasis which strikes me as less likely to be confused (obviously you don't spank a child and set them back down behind the TV for example). A lot of people probably are angry when they spank their kids, but I don't think removing spanking is going to make them less angry when they're yelling and snatching their kids up without a spanking either.

Anyway, I guess a parent who can handle spanking without being angry probably has the patience not to use it and go with a different method. In that light it does seem like a less useful method.

 

[Region Rat]

This is a common fallacy. A child doesn't learn [X] is dangerous because the behavior results in spanking. The child learns Mom or Dad hit me if I do [X].

At a certain age, the whole point is to keep the child from doing X. It doesn't much matter what he learns, as long as it is not to do X. Understanding why comes later.

After all, if spanking is the main form of discipline, it is being used for all sorts of undesired behaviors. There is no association with danger.

I said nothing about spanking being the main source of discipline. In fact, I didn't say anything about discipline or punishment. I was discussing deterrence to prevent the child from injuring himself. Be careful.

You must not have any kids. Kids don't stick their hands in a fire to see what it feels like. They play too close to the fireplace not realizing they could fall into the fire. Or they play with matches they saw someone else light, or other kinds of dangerous behavior around fire.

I have 2 kids, thank you for asking. Both in college now and doing quite well. I know kids are attracted to new and fascinating things. Flames are quite fascinating to a small child. Of course kids stick their hands in fire to see what it feels like. How are they to know they'll get hurt. Kids don't do anything tentatively. They'll run up and just do it because the thought got in their heads. Toddlers are quite inquisitive.

The first responsibility of the parent is to make the child's environment safe. So if you are talking about very young children there should not be a fire they can stick their hands into.

Yes, there should not be. And yet, sometimes there is.

If the child is older, or you are at someone else's house and there is a danger, then the child's movement needs to be restricted.

Yes, it needs to be. And yet, sometimes it is not.

We could go on and on with these examples ad nauseum. For every single one of them, without fail, there is an alternative discipline that does not involve inflicting physical pain. Parents do however, have to make an effort to learn the methods. Spanking is lazy parenting, IMO.

Again, I am not discussing spanking as a form of punishment. Be clear on that. You keep going back to that.

You are correct, there may be many ways to deter a child from doing something they may not be doing. Smacking a hand away from danger is one of them. There is nothing lazy about it, no matter how much you wish it to be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger, thanks. I don't know that spanking necessarily conveys anger and inflicts pain. If it doesn't, which it needn't, then it's removing a child with emphasis which strikes me as less likely to be confused (obviously you don't spank a child and set them back down behind the TV for example). A lot of people probably are angry when they spank their kids, but I don't think removing spanking is going to make them less angry when they're yelling and snatching their kids up without a spanking either.

Anyway, I guess a parent who can handle spanking without being angry probably has the patience not to use it and go with a different method. In that light it does seem like a less useful method.

What people often don't consider when they believe they are not spanking in anger is how is the child supposed to know that? So even if a parent isn't angry and sincerely believes the spanking is a teaching tool, the child certainly isn't going to get that message. The message to the child is, Mom/Dad hit me.

Think about it another way. Your toddler wants to play with the electrical cord. Is that their fault? Did they know better and play with the cord anyway? Remember, this is the child who needs to learn the cord is dangerous.

Suppose you parked in a no parking zone, but there was no sign saying one couldn't park there. You get a ticket. Would that seem fair to you? You would learn it was a no parking zone. But you learned through punishment which followed an unfair expectation. Would you see the ticket as just a learning experience? Or would you learn the city was unreasonable?

 

[sadhatter]

Skeptic Ginger, thanks. I don't know that spanking necessarily conveys anger and inflicts pain. If it doesn't, which it needn't, then it's removing a child with emphasis which strikes me as less likely to be confused (obviously you don't spank a child and set them back down behind the TV for example). A lot of people probably are angry when they spank their kids, but I don't think removing spanking is going to make them less angry when they're yelling and snatching their kids up without a spanking either.

Anyway, I guess a parent who can handle spanking without being angry probably has the patience not to use it and go with a different method. In that light it does seem like a less useful method.

Okay, please explain to me, the exact steps to take to ensure spanking does not inflict pain. I would love to know. And if it doesn't inflict pain, how does the child even know your doing it? And if it feels pleasant how does the child know its a punishment?

The mental contortions people use to justify this are amazing.

" It is hitting, but you can't call it hitting. "

" You can do it without causing pain."

" It is not very effective, but i still want to use it **** it!"

 

[sadhatter]

At a certain age, the whole point is to keep the child from doing X. It doesn't much matter what he learns, as long as it is not to do X. Understanding why comes later.



I said nothing about spanking being the main source of discipline. In fact, I didn't say anything about discipline or punishment. I was discussing deterrence to prevent the child from injuring himself. Be careful.



I have 2 kids, thank you for asking. Both in college now and doing quite well. I know kids are attracted to new and fascinating things. Flames are quite fascinating to a small child. Of course kids stick their hands in fire to see what it feels like. How are they to know they'll get hurt. Kids don't do anything tentatively. They'll run up and just do it because the thought got in their heads. Toddlers are quite inquisitive.



Yes, there should not be. And yet, sometimes there is.


Yes, it needs to be. And yet, sometimes it is not.



Again, I am not discussing spanking as a form of punishment. Be clear on that. You keep going back to that.

You are correct, there may be many ways to deter a child from doing something they may not be doing. Smacking a hand away from danger is one of them. There is nothing lazy about it, no matter how much you wish it to be.

The problem is , at any age where the child is likely to do something as silly as stick their hand in a fire because it looks pretty, you should be watching them.

In short, when they are too young to understand things are dangerous, you should be stopping them from coming into contact with dangerous things. And once they are beyond that age, you can use more effective/less violent methods of punishment in order to get the desired result.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At a certain age, the whole point is to keep the child from doing X. It doesn't much matter what he learns, as long as it is not to do X. Understanding why comes later.

So it is not correct then to say the child associates spanking pain with a dangerous behavior. There is no special learning that [X] is dangerous. There is general learning that Mom/Dad hit me if I do [X].

See my above post. Shouldn't the child have a chance to learn not to do something before the child is punished for simply being naturally curious?

I said nothing about spanking being the main source of discipline. In fact, I didn't say anything about discipline or punishment. I was discussing deterrence to prevent the child from injuring himself. Be careful.

Yet you were specifically addressing something I said about spanking!. You be careful.

Even if spanking is not the main form of discipline, the message is Mom/Dad are angry at the child. The message is not, [X] is dangerous.

I have 2 kids, thank you for asking. Both in college now and doing quite well. I know kids are attracted to new and fascinating things. Flames are quite fascinating to a small child. Of course kids stick their hands in fire to see what it feels like. How are they to know they'll get hurt. Kids don't do anything tentatively. They'll run up and just do it because the thought got in their heads. Toddlers are quite inquisitive.

This is a silly thing to debate. Kids do dangerous things because they don't know better. Let's leave it there where we agree.

Yes, there should not be. And yet, sometimes there is.


Yes, it needs to be. And yet, sometimes it is not.

Like I said, the chance benefit that spanking a child is going to then protect the child in the future when supervision lapses (and I agree, the parent is unlikely to be perfect) is minimal. And the minimal benefit is outweighed by the consistent benefit that non-spanking teaching methods are superior teaching tools.

The parent who removes the child from danger or removes the danger from the child is going to be just as likely (probably more likely) to perform that act as the child is likely to recognize a danger because they were spanked in a previous experience.

There is also another false assumption going on here that removing the hazard is not also teaching the child. My dogs learned to piss outside. I did not have to hit my dogs to teach them that. When they peed in the house as puppies, I put them outside. I also tried to take them outside before they peed. If you stop your child from playing with the electrical cord, they don't learn to investigate the cord when you aren't looking. They learn, I'm not supposed to play with the cord.

People are assuming only pain and/or fear motivates a child. Children are naturally motivated to please their parents. Nurture that natural behavior and your kids learn internal gratification for good behavior. Teach children using fear/pain and as soon as they are big enough not to fear you, what is there left to motivate them to behave?

Again, I am not discussing spanking as a form of punishment. Be clear on that. You keep going back to that.

You are correct, there may be many ways to deter a child from doing something they may not be doing. Smacking a hand away from danger is one of them. There is nothing lazy about it, no matter how much you wish it to be.

It would appear you've gone back to discussing spanking.

Yes, smacking a hand away is lazy. It takes more effort to say, no, and offer an alternative. However, the laziness I'm referring to is in not taking the time to learn better parenting skills.