How Large is your Penis?

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Is Spanking a Good Idea?

One does not need to experience something to speak about it. I have never been in the military but I am anti-military. I do not have to experience the military to form my ideas about it, experience certainly helps but it not a prerequisite. I bring this up because I am not a parent, I have no kids, nor any adopted ones either. I do not have to be a parent to say what I think about spanking. Besides every parent at one point was not a parent, at that moment the parent had some ideas about spanking, then they simply cared over their own pre-parent ideas with them once they became parents. Thus, being a parent has little relevance here. Those who support spanking probably have supported it before their kids were born.

To answer the question of whether spanking is good or not we should be more specific and ask what is it good for? It all depends on what you want to achieve as a parent. If your goal is to create obedient little children who follow every single command from you with no disagreement then perhaps spanking is a good idea. I can see how it will work. Johnny does not want to make his bed, so take him and hit him enough times until he feels the pain and does what you say. Eventually, Johnny will learn to fear you and do what you tell him to do. So if your goal is to create obedience and authority in your children then perhaps spanking is the way to go.

Such parents are not good parents. These kind of parents teach little to their children, their primary lesson is obedience to all what the parent says. Good parents teach to their children important values. A good parent will teach his kids not to steal, to stay away from dishonesty, to share, to be friendly, and so forth. Such a parent is teaching his kids proper values. If your goal is to teach proper values to your children then spanking is bad idea.

Spanking does not teach children values. Spanking does not teach children anything except obedience. A child who cleans the house because you tell him so is not doing it because you taught him values that made him do that but rather that he is afraid of you. That is not teaching him anything. If you were not present he would not do it, that is the entire point. He does so only because he is afraid of your presence. This kind of parenting fails to teach proper values to children.

So I do not think parents should spank their children. Or even yell at them or scream at them in an intimidating way to make them scared of you. Because fear is really the same approach as spanking, make the kids do as you say because otherwise they will fear the consequences. Parents should explain to their children what it is they want them to do. I think it is good for parents to argue with their children. I know some parents hold the no-argument policy, what they say goes. But I think these parents are making a mistake. It is good for your kids to argue with you. It shows they are thinking and not accepting what you say simply because you say it. They are being skeptical. This is great, something to be encouraged even more, not to be avoided. Children are capable to think also, they are humans after all. They can reason and comprehend, even young kids. Parents should argue with their children. But not a shouting argument of ad hominem attacks. Rather teach your children the correct way to argue with reason. Explain to them why their reasoning is wrong. And if they find a mistake in your reasoning, which will happen, rarely, but should happen, admit to them that you were wrong and they were right after all. This will make them respect you a lot more and teach them to be thinking skeptics at an early age. Parents should also show disappointment, anger, and other negative emotions, to make their children feel why they are wrong, rather than intimidating them with fear or spanking.

One will object to me that my method is inefficient. Even if you convince a kid that he is entirely wrong he might go and do what he wants anyway, that is just how kids are. True. I do not deny that. But so what? Parenting is not supposed to be about efficiency. Parents should be about teaching kids proper values. This can only be accomplished in the manner I described. You do not teach by spanking, even if it is more efficient at making them do what you want. At least the method I describe will teach them values. Even if they do little of what you say they will do something, and what they do will be from their understanding of it rather then following obedience. Furthermore, this kid will learn to think more clearly and be more skeptical. All of this will make him much better than spanking would ever accomplish.

Parenting is not supposed to be an easy job. It is hard. It will be filled with a lot of challenges. And part of the challenges is teaching kids proper values even if they refuse to follow them. Spanking is for bad and lazy parents, parents who do not want to struggle to teach values, rather to make their kids do what they say. Spanking is supported by the people who are lazy or unwilling to do their job as a parent. This is exactly why I oppose child spanking.

12 comments:

  1. I agree, and there is also plenty of research out there on the long lasting negative effects of corporal punishment.

    The caveat is that it is uncertain how much of of the research is applicable accross cultures.

    I'd like to participate in your poll but you didn't post a pic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The caveat is that it is uncertain how much of of the research is applicable accross cultures.":

    My argument is not based on research, but rather observation and introspection. Which is why my argument should will apply to all kinds of people across the world.

    "I'd like to participate in your poll but you didn't post a pic.":

    If I posted a picture I would probably be required to put a adult warning on this site. ^^

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think corporal punishment is PROBABLY detrimental everywhere, but observation and introspection is a poor way to substantiate that theory- how many cultures could you have observed?

    ReplyDelete
  4. " but observation and introspection is a poor way to substantiate that theory":

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "One does not need to experience something to speak about it..."

    Maybe not, in the strictly literal sense; you CAN indeed speak about something even w/o any related experience. But forming a defendable opinion worth putting out there---ah, that's where that annoyingly overrated 'experience' thing comes in.

    "...experience certainly helps but it not a prerequisite....I have never been in the military but I am anti-military."

    anti-military, huh? Do you mean noone should have any armies? Or only democracies---rogue dictators who don't listen to your rules anyway would be allowed to have armies? Do you feel all armies are morally equal? What an inane statement; one hardly knows where to begin! I guess this is where a LACK of experience is helpful---merely not having actually served in the military would not suffice to form this particular opinion---to be anti-military (whatever that means) you would need to have NOT ever had your country invaded by the brutal army of the maniac-next-door. You'd also need to know NOTHING of all human history or current events (other than what's happening in the blogosphere, of course)---if you meet those criteria of non-experience, you might just find a logical path to being "anti-military".

    your reasoning re: spanking actually contains some good sense. But again, it exists totally in the abstract. There are plenty of good arguments against any spanking at all---but to be fair & effective, those arguments would have to begin with the knowledge that not all spanking is done as part of a tyrannical crusade for obedience. There are times when a small child works himself up into near-hysteria, well beyond the reach of reason. Spanking may or may not be the answer, but neither is your holier-than-thou stance about it. You seem to form what you think are well-reasoned opinions---from a position of utter ignorance of the real-world situation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's funny, I agree with your conclusion, but I really have to agree with other commenters that "You seem to form what you think are well-reasoned opinions---from a position of utter ignorance of the real-world situation." Not just on this subject, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "anti-military, huh? Do you mean noone should have any armies?":

    You ask me what I mean by anti-military then you come up with your own answer to what I mean by that. How about your aslo interpret anti-military to mean "killing people who served in army and eat them at a barbeque" and then proceed to explain why I am wrong? Who cares about trying to figure out what I mean by that if you can just make up interpretations?

    Anti-military means that I have no respect for the military and see no virtue in what they do, at least not in the present day. This does not mean there is no such thing as a respectable soldier or a just war, but these traits are not the norm.

    War, the way it has meant for thousands of years, is usually a means for rich old men to secure their property and power by sending off poor young men to die for them. Of course, the young men think they are doing something virtuous lest they do not tempted to do it. There are wars that were just and in self-defense, but again, this is not the norm.

    Therefore, what soldiers have been for the big deal of history are just paid murders who go into other countries and kill other people. I have no respect for people like that. Besides many soldiers go into the military to have fun, it has nothing to do about defense of a country. When I was in high school some classmates talked about how they want to join the military and have fun flying airplanes and dropping bombs. These kind of people are your trypical piece of garbage members you find in the military that have little value for human life. That is exactly what I mean by being anti-military.

    I also despise how one is not allowed to criticize the military. Oh my science, I just sad some terrible things about the military. (You probably will repeat for me the neo-conservative non-sense about how they are defending our freedom and non-sense like that to counter what I said).

    ReplyDelete
  8. You complain that I didn't look for the nuanced meaning in your broad statement of being "anti-military" (YOU made the declaration with no qualifications)---then you go on to "clarify":
    <<< anti-military means that I have no respect for the military and see no virtue in what they do, at least not in the present day >>>

    Since, presumably (one hopes), you don't attribute more virtue and more humanistic motives to, say, the Huns, the Mongols or the Soviets, your statement IS, in fact a broad, unfocused indictment of all military forces. You're anti-military, in general.
    Virtually all people of good intentions agree it would be terrific if there were no more wars; most people of minimal intelligence realize this is not likely to happen anytime soon. Hence the need for a military.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "You complain that I didn't look for the nuanced meaning in your broad statement of being "anti-military" ":

    Instead of lubing up your hand reaching in your anus and pulling something out about what it means you could have asked me what I precisely mean by that.

    "Virtually all people of good intentions agree it would be terrific if there were no more wars; most people of minimal intelligence realize this is not likely to happen anytime soon. Hence the need for a military.":

    The necessity of something does not imply that it is good or virtuous. The necessity of having a military does not imply its virtue. It can be necessary but evil. And that is exactly what it is. Many people in the military are a bunch of low-lives with no respect for the lives or property of other people. Hence, my anti-military charachter. But most people in world and especially in the US put soldiers on some pedesal and say that they are more virtuous than all of us because "they fight for freedom" (whatever that even means). I am challenging this notion for calling it out as evil.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Because conclusions based on introspection and observation are only valid concerning people similar to you and the people you observe.

    That doesn't mean that they are wrong when applied to other people; it means they are inconclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BS said <<< Instead of lubing up your hand reaching in your anus and pulling something out about what it means you could have asked me what I precisely mean by that. >>>

    gosh, why didn't I just ask you for your nuanced, intelligent, well-thought-out explanation?

    more BS: " Many people in the military are a bunch of low-lives with no respect for the lives or property of other people.......Hence, my anti-military charachter. "

    low-lives, huh? I'll bet some of them even instantly resort to gratuitously offensive vulgarity anytime someone doesn't agree with them and they can't make their point conventionally.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "gosh, why didn't I just ask you for your nuanced, intelligent, well-thought-out explanation?"

    "low-lives, huh? I'll bet some of them even instantly resort to gratuitously offensive vulgarity anytime someone doesn't agree with them and they can't make their point conventionally."

    You have not refuted a single point I made in response to you. My main objection to the morality of the military still stands.

    What you did however was attack my personality. Which is fine if you want to do that. You seem to want to imply that I am a douchebag. Yes I am. I am also arrogant. I am a piece of garbage and to some degree I am a low-live. What is your point exactly? You can tell me something I already know? I know myself rather well because I am capable of honest introspection. Yes, I suck. But my douchebaggary and arrogance do not affect the truth claim of my statement. I can be a child molesting neo-Nazi and speak the truth 99% of the time, while I can be a brain numbing PC speaking retard who gets the truth correct 1% of the time. My personality is irrelevant here.

    ReplyDelete