Thread: Discipline vs. Abuse

I assume you mean something along the lines of the cliche, they simply do not know any better. Now, using that wisdom to argue that therefore children should be subjected to something that is illegal to do to unconsenting adults is a serious fallacy. I'm sure you can see where people mix up a child's development, and a child's developing self control. This wouldn't even be a issue if we had child's rights against corporeal punishment in the home, as the countries of Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, Latvia, Israel, Germany, Bulgaria, Iceland, Romania, Ukraine, Hungary, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Uruguay, Venezuela, Spain, Republic of Moldova, Costa Rica, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Tunisia, Poland, and Kenya do, but we don't. Thus, this thread. If a child walks into a store, does not have the capacity to control their emotions, and begins to throw a fit. . . That is a good excuse to hit them? The child's tantrum is affecting the people in the store and the adult. Who is in control of the adult's emotion, and subsequent choice of action? The child? Or the adult? Who is responsible for teaching this child? The adult is. What does a show of aggression teach the child in the short and long term? To fear the adult's reactions, and that the sort of aggression modeled to them was acceptable? Does the developmental process of a child have no relevance to this conversation? Should we really focus more the effects that spanking has on the short-term response of obedience? Or should it be a discussion around what being hit teaches a child? It seems to me that we can all agree it is not okay to hit those that are mentally disabled, or those that have physical disabilities simply because they do not have the self-control or ability to function in the same manner of the rest of us. Why is it we think hitting young children is acceptable? If you are saying that the emotional instability of a child, and their lack of self control are perfectly good reasons to hit them, and yet at the same time completely agree that children are still learning and therefore deserve more of a parent's time and patience. . . do you not see the fallacy here? Who is the one in control of their emotions? The parent. Who is the example for their child? The parent. Using this logic, it is only ethical that the parent be able to control their own impulses and not hit their child. Like I said in my post above yes, a child's mental process is still being developed. The parent shapes that in their child. Yes, children cannot control themselves, and that is okay. It's okay for children not to be in control of themselves. It is the responsibility of the adult to show them how to participate positively in their world. I can think of many names of those who have shaped our world, and did not need to exert force to do so. The Dali Lama is just one example. It's as simple as asking the question What sort of example do you want to be to your kids? It doesn't matter that the customers in the store are disrupted, or how loudly the child is screaming what really matters is in that moment what decision the adult choses to make, and what it will teach their child. And if you still believe physical punishment is somehow justified, please, for the sake of curiosity, learning, or if you simply have a few minutes to spare, read a little about where my stance comes from. Here's a short ten reasons why one should not hit children.