I read about "hot saucing" on the internet

[sadhatter]

Or to make my point in a simplier manner.

I don't hit my girlfriend, i just spank her when she gets out of line. Is non acceptable.

Yet.

I don't hit my kids, i just spank them when they get out of line. Is.

 

[Ryokan]

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

Then define spanking for me.

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.

Like what?

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
I take it and took it as a means for getting the little bastard to pay attention to what Mums and Daddums were saying was correct behavior.
Properly performed.. typcially a swat to the tuchus, once the full ceremony had been applied... nekkid, butt up, open palm impact on the cheeks.. the little bastard child would anticipate similar applications when exhibiting behavior previously stated to be unacceptable, and comprehend the parents had its best interests in mind, and were trying to help the little bastard beloved offspring recognize right and wrong.

 

[dirtywick]

Then define spanking for me.

I assume you want me to define the intent. I don't think it's implausible to strike someone without causing pain, or intending to. When I wrestle with my daughter and play fight, it involves "hitting", but there's no intent to knock her out. A spanking should be used as non-verbal communication IMO, and doesn't have to involve any pain at all.

Like what?

False imprisonment, forced labor off the top of my head.

 

[Ryokan]

I assume you want me to define the intent. I don't think it's implausible to strike someone without causing pain, or intending to. When I wrestle with my daughter and play fight, it involves "hitting", but there's no intent to knock her out. A spanking should be used as non-verbal communication IMO, and doesn't have to involve any pain at all.

Playing a bit rough with your child for fun isn't what we're talking about here. And a swat on the behind is not spanking. I suspect you know that that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about parents who spank their children, and that it's legal to do so in some countries.

False imprisonment, forced labor off the top of my head.

So kids get sent to their room and have to do extra chores.

Adults get thrown in prison and forced to print license plates. But no matter what, corporal punishment is strictly forbidden. You can't spank a prisoner, no matter how naughty he has been.

And if you subjected your kids to real imprisonment and forced labour, I'm sure you would get a visit from the authorities.

 

[dirtywick]

Playing a bit rough with your child for fun isn't what we're talking about here. And a swat on the behind is not spanking. I suspect you know that that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about parents who spank their children, and that it's legal to do so in some countries.

I am aware that's not what we're talking about. It was to illustrate that parents are capable of controlling the amount of force used when striking so as not to cause pain and that pain isn't necessarily the goal of a strike. I can "hit" my child and have the child enjoy it, even.

A swat on the behind is the dictionary definition of spanking. It seems that you're OK with that though.

Our disagreement over what constitutes spanking is pretty much why people shouldn't be using "hitting" incidentally.

So kids get sent to their room and have to do extra chores.

Adults get thrown in prison and forced to print license plates. But no matter what, corporal punishment is strictly forbidden. You can't spank a prisoner, no matter how naughty he has been.

There is an authority/subordinate dynamic with children not usually present with adults, which further suggests that comparisons to what equally positioned adults can do to one another is a poor measuring stick of parenting.

And if you subjected your kids to real imprisonment and forced labour, I'm sure you would get a visit from the authorities.

If it's a matter of degrees, that's fine. Regardless, even fake imprisonment and forced labor that a parent would routinely apply to a child is illegal when done to an adult.

 

[Ryokan]

I am aware that's not what we're talking about. It was to illustrate that parents are capable of controlling the amount of force used when striking so as not to cause pain and that pain isn't necessarily the goal of a strike. I can "hit" my child and have the child enjoy it, even.

A swat on the behind is the dictionary definition of spanking. It seems that you're OK with that though.

Our disagreement over what constitutes spanking is pretty much why people shouldn't be using "hitting" incidentally.

That's not what my dictionary says. My dictionary says, "to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks, as in punishment." So if you want to say you strike your child instead of hitting, that's fine by me. But it's all playing with semantics. You know what people mean when they say they spank their child. And where I'm from, that would get you charged with assault.

There is an authority/subordinate dynamic with children not usually present with adults, which further suggests that comparisons to what equally positioned adults can do to one another is a poor measuring stick of parenting.

If it's a matter of degrees, that's fine. Regardless, even fake imprisonment and forced labor that a parent would routinely apply to a child is illegal when done to an adult.

All this talk of false imprisonment and forced labour is just a red herring. We're talking about corporal punishment, and that's illegal against all humans in my country, whether done your average Joe or by the state - but in yours it's ok against children.

I'm sorry, we'll never agree on this. I find it barbaric.

 

[dirtywick]

That's not what my dictionary says. My dictionary says, "to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks, as in punishment." So if you want to say you strike your child instead of hitting, that's fine by me. But it's all playing with semantics. You know what people mean when they say they spank their child. And where I'm from, that would get you charged with assault.

You're the one who said a "swat on the behind" isn't the same thing and didn't seem to be disgusted by it's barbarism. That's what I know spanking as.

Before you wash your hands of this, would you get charged with assault for doing that in your country?

All this talk of false imprisonment and forced labour is just a red herring. We're talking about corporal punishment, and that's illegal against all humans in my country - but in yours it's ok against children.

I'm sorry, we'll never agree on this. I find it barbaric.

You brought up that it's not OK to do to a child what you can't do to an adult. I bring up a counter point, and now it's a red herring.

I don't think we will agree if you don't want to discuss it.

 

[Beth]

Do i really have to spell this out?

Clearly, we aren't communicating. I'm talking about how they evoke a similar response in their respective discussions.

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.

And pro-life folks might say something quite similar in an abortion/murder debate. That's my point.

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.

I'm never said it wasn't hitting. I said that the use of the term is designed to arouse people's emotions, not facilitate rational discussion. Your posts illustrate that point rather nicely.

Playing a bit rough with your child for fun isn't what we're talking about here. And a swat on the behind is not spanking. I suspect you know that that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about parents who spank their children, and that it's legal to do so in some countries.

Acutally, a swat or swats on the behind is the definition of spanking as I understand it and what I am referring to. What you are talking about if that isn't it?

 

[Ryokan]

You're the one who said a "swat on the behind" isn't the same thing and didn't seem to be disgusted by it's barbarism. That's what I know spanking as.

Before you wash your hands of this, would you get charged with assault for doing that in your country?

According to the Norwegian Supreme Court, absolutely.

Norway - since 1987 (The Supreme court ruled in 2005 that a light "careful slap" applied immediately after the "offence" is still allowed. Legislature abolished this in 2010, and the current law is that any violence against children, including careful slaps, is prohibited.)

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

When the amendment to the Parent and Child Act was being debated in the Norwegian Parliament, the Minister of Justice suggested that even though parental physical violence was already prohibited in the Criminal Code, the new reform was not superfluous. For many people did not understand or know about the law, and making corporal punishment clearly illegal in the Parent and Child Act would inform the general public. There was considerable lack of clarity about parents' rights and the legal change in 1972 had been just as confusing as clarifying. Now there would be no doubt: in applying the criminal law, the child would have the same protection as everyone else from the use of violence. It was not sufficient to protect children from "real" pain and "unnecessary" humiliation. Corporal punishment as a way of bringing up children was no longer acceptable.

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/prohib_states.html#norway

In other words, the law in Norway wasn't changed - it was just made clear that the same laws that protect adults, also protect children.

You brought up that it's not OK to do to a child what you can't do to an adult. I bring up a counter point, and now it's a red herring.

I don't think we will agree if you don't want to discuss it.

I did no such thing. Let me quote the post you are referring to:

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?

You can clearly see I didn't say that anything you can't do to an adult, you can't do to a child either. I was specific in that I mentioned spanking. You can't corporately punish an adult, so why should you be allowed to do it to a child?

ETA: Edited away the disagreement over the word swat.

 

[Ryokan]

Acutally, a swat or swats on the behind is the definition of spanking as I understand it and what I am referring to. What you are talking about if that isn't it?

Ok, I guess we came to the limit of my knowledge of English.. In my mind, I saw a swat as a careful little pat. Looking it up in the dictionary, swat is defined as "to hit; slap; smack." So that's definitely spanking then, and should be considered assault whether it's done to an adult or a child.

 

[rakon]

What kind of hotsauce are these people using?

At least here in germany I only heard the term hot sauce to describe really really really hot stuff.
Can someone explain how many scoville a sauce does need in order to be considered a hot sauce and what range of these are used on children?

 

[Spindrift]

I was spanked as a child and I can tell you from first hand experience it did nothing except sow resentment in me. It was punishment that makes the punisher feel like they are doing something to address the issue, when it may not only not address the issue, it can cause other problems. Spanking does instill fear, fear of the punisher, not the punishment. I have and have always had a very high pain tolerance, which would frustrate the person spanking me. I'm pretty sure their hand hurt as much as my butt.

 

[BTMO]

Great photos of parenting received today....
Note the reddish left sleeve on her tee shirt...
And what did it,
And what it looked like,
And Daddy had to get the photos before going to the ER.
Not as bad as hot-saucing a kid's mouth, but about the same indifference and just plain bad parenting...

The photo is part of the story.

Ambulances have finite travel times.

That is a big fish!

The kid will survive.

I fail to see the issue.

 

[BTMO]

I am upset that this thread has nothing to do with kinky sexual practices

High five!

 

[dirtywick]

You can clearly see I didn't say that anything you can't do to an adult, you can't do to a child either. I was specific in that I mentioned spanking. You can't corporately punish an adult, so why should you be allowed to do it to a child?

ETA: Edited away the disagreement over the word swat.

You're right, I read more into your post than I should have. Sorry.

However I don't accept that as a valid argument against spanking as there are many things you can't do to an adult that you can (and should) a child. Whether or not spanking is one of them, though, appears to depend on local custom.

 

[I Ratant]

The photo is part of the story.

Ambulances have finite travel times.

That is a big fish!

The kid will survive.

I fail to see the issue.

.
It's a lot like that:
"Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you enjoy your trip to Dallas" brand of callousness.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

That doesn't make sense. If they understand one deterrent, why would they not understand a different deterrent?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

It's a straight forward question, Beth, what is the mechanism of spanking? I didn't ask what it felt like to you.

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?

 

[Region Rat]

That doesn't make sense. If they understand one deterrent, why would they not understand a different deterrent?

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