Gianantonio wrote:

For me, it comes down to using a method that promotes respect. Hitting a child does not promote respect. You hear a lot of the spankers hear complain how kids these days don't show respect. It's hard to do that when your parents aren't showing YOU respect. it's ironic how those complaining of kids' lack of respect advocate the use of a disciplinary technique that lacks a component of respect. That's why I think the rationale of "it teaches respect" is a post hoc attempt to legitimize spanking their kids.

Sure, all these things are good, but, after a certain point, you have to have the spanking as a last resort, otherwise the child will keep pushing/testing.

Same way some adults do....

Accidental  Plateau wrote:

Sure, all these things are good, but, after a certain point, you have to have the spanking as a last resort, otherwise the child will keep pushing/testing.

Same way some adults do....

want to make clear first that I'm not pointing fingers here.

but it would seem that a child that keeps misbehaving the same way, despite previous warnings and consequences and punishments, and that keeps taunting the parent and pushing/testing... that a smack won't work either. then it's fundamental behavior that needs to be changed. how does 5 (or longer, whatever) seconds of slapping are going to change something fundamentally?

Accidental  Plateau wrote:

Sure, all these things are good, but, after a certain point, you have to have the spanking as a last resort, otherwise the child will keep pushing/testing.

Same way some adults do....

No, they don't.

I think parents resort to spanking when they run out of patience.

Erlinda wrote:

Every parent would rather not spank their kid. (unless they are abusve, but that's a whole other story).

Spanking for me happens when the kid has gotten a few chances from me and i'v also sat them down and talked to them and they still do it. It's a last resort and I don't enjoy it, I'm pretty sure other parents don't enjoy it either. Unless they are sick in the head

I think what's interesting about this discussion is the concept of "last resort". Last resort is different, depending on the specifics of the immediate situation, the child, *and* the parent.

I'm *quite* sure that some corporal punishments handed out by some parents were absolutely considered last resort by them, but to many people who spank their children as a last resort would be considered way out of line.

So, in may respects, it's not just about the child - it's about the parent too.

One the things that I've encountered as a parent - especially the first time through - was that I was in a race to acquire parenting skills ahead of the child needing them. I knew (based on past experiences growing up) that developing a relationship of mutual respect was going to be key to be able to parent the child through middle school and high school. So, when I look at situation where I was tempted to spank my child (and boy was the temptation there at times), I looked at it as my own failure to correct the child's behavior through other means, and I redoubled my efforts to do it otherwise.

The way that I think about this was also affected by my experiences in the business world. One of my friend/mentor/boss once told me about a person that worked for him that came into complain that no one on the team would listen to his ideas. My mentor replied "So what you are telling me that you've failed to champion your own ideas to the team?" That person never came back to complain about that issue again.

When I think about working with one of my children - especially when they were young - to some extent I refused to accept that I could not get the outcome that I really wanted. Often this meant a little soul searching about what I really wanted as a parent for my child, as opposed to any emotional needs I had (like the need to feel in control, powerful, etc).

In Balance Photography wrote:

I think what's interesting about this discussion is the concept of "last resort". Last resort is different, depending on the specifics of the immediate situation, the child, *and* the parent.

I'm *quite* sure that some corporal punishments handed out by some parents were absolutely considered last resort by them, but to many people who spank their children as a last resort would be considered way out of line.

So, in may respects, it's not just about the child - it's about the parent too.

One the things that I've encountered as a parent - especially the first time through - was that I was in a race to acquire parenting skills ahead of the child needing them. I knew (based on past experiences growing up) that developing a relationship of mutual respect was going to be key to be able to parent the child through middle school and high school. So, when I look at situation where I was tempted to spank my child (and boy was the temptation there at times), I looked at it as my own failure to correct the child's behavior through other means, and I redoubled my efforts to do it otherwise.

The way that I think about this was also affected by my experiences in the business world. One of my friend/mentor/boss once told me about a person that worked for him that came into complain that no one on the team would listen to his ideas. My mentor replied "So what you are telling me that you've failed to champion your own ideas to the team?" That person never came back to complain about that issue again.

When I think about working with one of my children - especially when they were young - to some extent I refused to accept that I could not get the outcome that I really wanted. Often this meant a little soul searching about what I really wanted as a parent for my child, as opposed to any emotional needs I had (like the need to feel in control, powerful, etc).

sounds great

Gianantonio wrote:
No, they don't.

I think parents resort to spanking when they run out of patience.

I am sure some do. That is exactly the time it should NOT be administered.

Just like with a horse. There are riders who hit the horse when they run out of patience. Most only use the whip for very specific purpose. As a communication device; and with a cool head. This is because the strike is similar to when horses administer a very similar stimulus it as a communication with their teeth. They don't cause damage as a rule; the teeth don't usually grab the flesh; but it tells the other horse to move. So they understand the whip when it is vital they move. Use it all the time and they will not; it will be counter productive;  and it shouldn't ever be used just because one runs out of patience.

So this you make is a fair point.

But; there are times when 'A' light smack may be necessary and highly effective precisely because one doesn't spank them with regularity and out of lack of patience.It can communicate, warn, and steer away from danger with high and instant effectiveness when and only when it isn't abused.

And I think most parents realise this.
You don't need a law to protect children from physical abuse; that already exists.

Erlinda wrote:

Every parent would rather not spank their kid. (unless they are abusve, but that's a whole other story).

Spanking for me happens when the kid has gotten a few chances from me and i'v also sat them down and talked to them and they still do it. It's a last resort and I don't enjoy it, I'm pretty sure other parents don't enjoy it either. Unless they are sick in the head

Exactly.

Anna Adrielle wrote:

want to make clear first that I'm not pointing fingers here.

but it would seem that a child that keeps misbehaving the same way, despite previous warnings and consequences and punishments, and that keeps taunting the parent and pushing/testing... that a smack won't work either. then it's fundamental behavior that needs to be changed. how does 5 (or longer, whatever) seconds of slapping are going to change something fundamentally?

Yeah. Either there is an unhealthy dynamic in the household that needs to be addressed, or the child has some brain development or brain structure issues. And I don't use brain issues here pegoritively. Sometimes kids are born with brain issues. It happens. It's nothing to be ashamed at. My neighbor across the street has an autistic child. That's not a slam on her. It's just the way it is. Her son has a mild level--less extreme than the kids my younger son had in his class the first few years in school.

I don't think any parent would spank their kid if they didn't listen due to brain issues. But I could be wrong. And I don't think a parent would hit their kid for not responding to their voice if the child was deaf. Those are obvious issues that are easy for the parent to understand.

What's more difficult for parents is to understand what expectations are appropriate for their child at any given point in their development. But in a healthy home environment, kids want to perform for their parents. So when you tell them to do or not do something and they don't comply, that's one indicator that they can't do what you are expecting.

But as a parent, it's easy to screw up. If you aren't consistent, you can reinforce unwanted behavior. Think about Operant Conditioning. If you employ intermittent punishment, you increase the likelihood the undesired behavior will NOT extinguish. So you want to be consistent in punishing; but intermittent in rewarding. Of course, there is an intellectual component to raising kids that not so applicable to other animals. But that just makes it all easier.

Damon Banner wrote:

You need to learn to reason with them.  Appeal to them, on an adult level.

obviously you don't have kids...and if so...tell me how you "appeal to a 3 year old on an adult level"...

Erlinda wrote:
Every parent would rather not spank their kid. (unless they are abusve, but that's a whole other story).

if they don't want to, then why do they "believe" in it so much? I've seen plenty of replies here that imply 'hell yeah! spanking is tha bomb, and ain't nobody telling me I can't do it!"

Eliza C wrote:
I am sure some do. That is exactly the time it should NOT be administered.

Just like with a horse. There are riders who hit the horse when they run out of patience. Most only use the whip for very specific purpose. As a communication device; and with a cool head. This is because the strike is similar to when horses administer a very similar stimulus it as a communication with their teeth. They don't cause damage as a rule; the teeth don't usually grab the flesh; but it tells the other horse to move. So they understand the whip when it is vital they move. Use it all the time and they will not; it will be counter productive;  and it shouldn't ever be used just because one runs out of patience.

you know how they teach cows to stay away from the elktrified wire surrounding the field? first time they take them out on the field as calfs, they slam them into it a couple of times. you take them by the horns and push them into the elektrified wire, so they get a little shock. you repeat this a couple of times. It doesn't hurt nearly enough to kill them, just to hurt them a bit and scare them. when they did nothing wrong or when they didn't go near it themselves, they still do it. as a preventive measure.

why you would compare animals with children is beyond me. I'm sure it would be very effecive to hurt a child a bit, even before it does anything wrong, to teach it to stay away from certain things instead of waiting for it to make the mistake and then correct it. you see it happening? "you see that son? that's a busy road. be careful when crossing *slap*". and the child has learned to be afraid of busy roads, and the parent doesn't need to sit around and wait til the child runs out on the street to punish it. just like with the cows.
but children aren't cows. and they aren't horses either.

In Balance Photography wrote:

I think what's interesting about this discussion is the concept of "last resort". Last resort is different, depending on the specifics of the immediate situation, the child, *and* the parent.

I'm *quite* sure that some corporal punishments handed out by some parents were absolutely considered last resort by them, but to many people who spank their children as a last resort would be considered way out of line.

So, in may respects, it's not just about the child - it's about the parent too.

One the things that I've encountered as a parent - especially the first time through - was that I was in a race to acquire parenting skills ahead of the child needing them. I knew (based on past experiences growing up) that developing a relationship of mutual respect was going to be key to be able to parent the child through middle school and high school. So, when I look at situation where I was tempted to spank my child (and boy was the temptation there at times), I looked at it as my own failure to correct the child's behavior through other means, and I redoubled my efforts to do it otherwise.

The way that I think about this was also affected by my experiences in the business world. One of my friend/mentor/boss once told me about a person that worked for him that came into complain that no one on the team would listen to his ideas. My mentor replied "So what you are telling me that you've failed to champion your own ideas to the team?" That person never came back to complain about that issue again.

When I think about working with one of my children - especially when they were young - to some extent I refused to accept that I could not get the outcome that I really wanted. Often this meant a little soul searching about what I really wanted as a parent for my child, as opposed to any emotional needs I had (like the need to feel in control, powerful, etc).

A big YES to the above. Well put.

Unfortunately, many parents--typically the ones who see kids as "challenging" them just to be evil...--will see what you did as weakness when in fact it shows your incredible strength.

Anna Adrielle wrote:

if they don't want to, then why do they "believe" in it so much? I've seen plenty of replies here that imply 'hell yeah! spanking is tha bomb, and ain't nobody telling me I can't do it!"

Um, yeah. That's not how someone responds about something they don't enjoy doing...

Gianantonio wrote:

Um, yeah. That's not how someone responds about something they don't enjoy doing...

well, enjoy isn't the right word either. I'm sure most parents don't have a big smile on their face while spanking, thinking "omg this is amazing, I'm having the best time ever!"... "wanting to" and "enjoying" is not the same thing...

Anna Adrielle wrote:

well, enjoy isn't the right word either. I'm sure most parents don't have a big smile on their face while spanking, thinking "omg this is amazing, I'm having the best time ever!"... "wanting to" and "enjoying" is not the same thing...

I wonder with some of the people here... 

Gianantonio wrote:

I wonder with some of the people here... 

now now, be nice!

Mac is Live wrote:

You aren't very adult with kids. Expecting them to do something without teaching them is wrong. It's the approach of a mentally ill person.

Spanking is hitting. You have admitted to abusing children. Are you aware of that? Smiling about it in your first post makes it even more worrisome.

to edit: because I should explain. I'm not calling you mentally ill, but I know what court appointed psychologists will see, and that behavior of expecting them to know without showing them right from wrong is not the correct way to do things. You have to show kids how to behave. I apologize if I caused you any confusion. My statement isn't to incite anger. I want to correct error in judgement.

LOL, whatever dude.

Call CPS if I'm abusing children. If not, fuck off.

I never said I didn't teach them. They already know how to pick up their toys. They are 8 and 7. Therefore, they know and understand what I am asking and they do it.

Anna Adrielle wrote:
you know how they teach cows to stay away from the elktrified wire surrounding the field? first time they take them out on the field as calfs, they slam them into it a couple of times. you take them by the horns and push them into the elektrified wire, so they get a little shock. you repeat this a couple of times. It doesn't hurt nearly enough to kill them, just to hurt them a bit and scare them. when they did nothing wrong or when they didn't go near it themselves, they still do it. as a preventive measure.

why you would compare animals with children is beyond me. I'm sure it would be very effecive to hurt a child a bit, even before it does anything wrong, to teach it to stay away from certain things instead of waiting for it to make the mistake and then correct it. you see it happening? "you see that son? that's a busy road. be careful when crossing *slap*". and the child has learned to be afraid of busy roads, and the parent doesn't need to sit around and wait til the child runs out on the street to punish it. just like with the cows.
but children aren't cows. and they aren't horses either.

Because you cannot reason with a two year old child; and you cannot reason with an untrained animal. You can use 'natural' horsemanship etc and that is especially effective with abused animals. But a horse naturally learns through warnings; as does a cat as does a dog....as do other primates. So a ntural environment communication will not involve language ...or rather, that physical warning is sometimes required for use by a herd leader when for example a horse does not move from another horse despite the ears back warning. Similarly a dog has to learn its place in the pack.

You can start to try to reason with a two year old child; but there may be times you need to deter and make sure that is understood immediately. The cow will not go near the electric fence again. The horse will respond to the whip if its back end wanders in front of a car on the road. IF they are used with restraint and in apt situiations. So the cow for example will not go near the fence even when the electricity is turned off; and the horse will be unlikely to wander about in the road again. And neither will the child. There is very little that is remarkable difference between the human brain and the animal brain.

You CAN reason with a horse sometimes more swiftly so in many ways the cognitive ability is better. A horse can quickly learn the word trot and do it; and learn 'no'. A very young child it takes rather longer.
http://www.equineresearch.org/support-f … ghorse.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ … 9.full.pdf

Eliza C wrote:
Because you cannot reason with a two year old child; and you cannot reason with an untrained animal. You can use 'natural' horsemanship etc and that is especially effective with abused animals. But a horse learns through warnings; as does a cat as does a dog. You can start to try with a two year old child; but there may be times you need to deter and make sure that is understood immediately. The cow will not go near the electric fence again. The horse will repson to the whip if its back end wanders in front of a car on the road. IF they are used with restraint and in apt situiations. So the cow for example will not go near the fence even when the electricity is turned off; and the horse will be unlikely to wander about in the road again. And neither will the child. There is very little that is remarkable difference between the human brain and the animal brain.

You CAN reason with a horse sometimes more swiftly so in many ways the cognitive ability is better. A horse can quickly learn the word trot and do it; and learn 'no'. A very young child it takes rather longer.
http://www.equineresearch.org/support-f … ghorse.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ … 9.full.pdf

a child speks the human language. a horse doesn't. if I could have reasoned with the cows, I would have. but I don't speak their language.

a horse doesn't understand the meaning of trot. it learns that when it hears the word "trot", it must do something. you could teach it to trot whenever you say "shrimp cocktail". that's not communication though.

oh, so you think smacking as a preventive measure, doing it before the child actually does something wrong, is the way to go then? since that works so well with animals?

PS here's an article on the cognitive abilities of a 2 yr old. "following simple instructions" is one of the many things they can do at that age. they're not like untrained dogs.  http://www.babycenter.com/0_your-24-mon … 1273382.bc
at that age, they can also draw your attention by using words, can learn by acting out a situation, and understand and respond to simple questions.

here's a wikipedia link (scroll about halfway the page about child development at age 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_deve … evelopment
"language development:
*Receptive language is more developed than expressive language; most two-year olds understand significantly more than they can talk about
*Is able to verbalize needs.
*Asks a lot of questions"

they're not as "stupid" as you think

Gianantonio wrote:
I would keep them away from the hot stove...  Yes, I know that can be inconvenient.  But until they know not to touch it, why would I let them go near it?

I don't remotely see a false dichotomy.

Your goals & scenarios are all well & good in an ideal world but the fact of the matter is, we DON'T live in an ideal world. You cannot control what your kids 24-7. Simple as that.

In trying to protect & coddle them 24-7, one of two things will likely happen. A-The parent will go bonkers trying to protect them from everything that comes their way. B-Protecting them from everything only pussifies them for later in life. We in America are so concerned about having our kids succeed that we don't ALLOW them to fuckup on their own. Little fuckups (like getting a bad grade or not making the sports team) are ok, big fuckups (like getting permeantly injured or starting fights because you can or theft) is not ok. I know you disagree but I'd rather tan their fanny for stealing a candy bar than at the age of 17 they get a 5-year mininum for grand theft auto.

Anna Adrielle wrote:

if they don't want to, then why do they "believe" in it so much? I've seen plenty of replies here that imply 'hell yeah! spanking is tha bomb, and ain't nobody telling me I can't do it!"

I think they are saying that to just annoying the OP because we all know how he is about this subject.

Gianantonio wrote:

No, they don't.

I think parents resort to spanking when they run out of patience.

This is not true all of the time this is a false generalization!

In Balance Photography wrote:
Would people here agree that having to spank or smack a child is not a preferred outcome? (That is, one would rather that a timeout worked, or age appropriate discussion, or not have the bad behavior in the first place).

Sorry, no. Hitting a child is violence and it's never acceptable. Just imagine your boss hitting you at work for being late, or a policeman hitting you for speeding, it's just as unacceptable to hit a child. I even object to the phrase "bad behavior". I don't think I've ever thought of the way my kids behaved when they were little as "bad behavior". Kids behave the way they behave because they are kids. They don't know any better. They don't know that certain types of behavior is inappropriate in certain situations. They are moody, can't control their tempers but it's not their fault, that's side effect of their brains developing. Up until a certain age they don't understand the concept of delayed gratification. I always tried to respect what my kids wanted, I never, ever said "do it because I said so". That is being an asshole parent. You show your kids respect, they will respect you back. Then you will have a normal parent-child relationship with no place for violence.

I subscribe to the mantra that it's never the child's fault. Up to a certain age naturally.

Anna Adrielle wrote:
PS here's an article on the cognitive abilities of a 2 yr old. "following simple instructions" is one of the many things they can do at that age. they're not like untrained dogs.  http://www.babycenter.com/0_your-24-mon … 1273382.bc
at that age, they can also draw your attention by using words, can learn by acting out a situation, and understand and respond to simple questions.

/OT

Babies can use sign language to communicate with adults from the age of about 10 months if you start training them from birth

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

/end OT


The only time I smacked my daughter in 18 years was at a pebbly beach when she was about 5 and threw a good sized rock at me from about 5 feet away, hitting me on the forehead with it, after repeatedly being told not to throw the stones! Without even thinking about it, I gave her a single smack on the leg and - shockingly - didn't feel guilty at all



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

In Balance Photography wrote:
I think what's interesting about this discussion is the concept of "last resort". Last resort is different, depending on the specifics of the immediate situation, the child, *and* the parent.

I'm *quite* sure that some corporal punishments handed out by some parents were absolutely considered last resort by them, but to many people who spank their children as a last resort would be considered way out of line.

So, in may respects, it's not just about the child - it's about the parent too.

One the things that I've encountered as a parent - especially the first time through - was that I was in a race to acquire parenting skills ahead of the child needing them. I knew (based on past experiences growing up) that developing a relationship of mutual respect was going to be key to be able to parent the child through middle school and high school. So, when I look at situation where I was tempted to spank my child (and boy was the temptation there at times), I looked at it as my own failure to correct the child's behavior through other means, and I redoubled my efforts to do it otherwise.

The way that I think about this was also affected by my experiences in the business world. One of my friend/mentor/boss once told me about a person that worked for him that came into complain that no one on the team would listen to his ideas. My mentor replied "So what you are telling me that you've failed to champion your own ideas to the team?" That person never came back to complain about that issue again.

When I think about working with one of my children - especially when they were young - to some extent I refused to accept that I could not get the outcome that I really wanted. Often this meant a little soul searching about what I really wanted as a parent for my child, as opposed to any emotional needs I had (like the need to feel in control, powerful, etc).

That sounds lovely. And I hope when I have kids I won't have to resort to spanking but when a child is 2 or 3 years old they don't have the capabilities to realize right from wrong or good from dangerous.

If you don't want your 2 year old to do something that is dangerous after you told them no and tried to explain that it would hurt them yet they still do it. The only way I could see them from not doing it is by tapping their hand/bum to show them that going near a thing that could potentially hurt me is not good because i get spanked.

The younger the child is the harder it is to communicate with them. Most parents do their best before they spank their child.

I mean when the 3 year old I was baby sitting throw one of her chairs at me. I took her to her room told her it was wrong and that she could really hurt someone and then gave her a time out in her room. An hour later she does it again. I do the same thing but with a pissed off tone to my voice yet that didn't stop her and she did it again. So I took her hand and tapped it, told her no and put her in her room. Never throw her damn chair at me again.

Anna Adrielle wrote:
a child speks the human language. a horse doesn't. if I could have reasoned with the cows, I would have. but I don't speak their language.

a horse doesn't understand the meaning of trot. it learns that when it hears the word "trot", it must do something. you could teach it to trot whenever you say "shrimp cocktail". that's not communication though.

oh, so you think smacking as a preventive measure, doing it before the child actually does something wrong, is the way to go then? since that works so well with animals?

PS here's an article on the cognitive abilities of a 2 yr old. "following simple instructions" is one of the many things they can do at that age. they're not like untrained dogs.  http://www.babycenter.com/0_your-24-mon … 1273382.bc
at that age, they can also draw your attention by using words, can learn by acting out a situation, and understand and respond to simple questions.

here's a wikipedia link (scroll about halfway the page about child development at age 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_deve … evelopment
"language development:
*Receptive language is more developed than expressive language; most two-year olds understand significantly more than they can talk about
*Is able to verbalize needs.
*Asks a lot of questions"

they're not as "stupid" as you think

I didn't say they were stupid. I said that you can start to reason with them.
BUT you can also reason with horses; AND they can begin to understand language as the cites showed. So I never said that children were stupid; I said that animals are able to communicate and have more cognitive abilities than we previously thought. In fact some observers have put a mature horses cognitive development at about equivalent to a 7 year old child. HOWEVER sometimes both the child and horse may respond for their own safety and that of other more rapidly to a light smack if rarely administered; precisely because they may not understand more abstract dangers. YES try to communicate and begin to reason; but sometimes the need is rather more pressing.
We are primates; animals. We really are not that different. In many ways; a young horse or kitten has to learn far more quickly because its life depends on it. And a harsh nudge poke or slap on the nose from mother works quickly. Why would it be different in a human?

I am not defending it in all instances. Just some. And I think most parents realise that difference. And animals are not that much different. It is simply a valid necessary and natural communication tool when there is no possibility of reason.

Erlinda wrote:

That's sounds lovely. And I hope when I have kids I won't have to resort to spanking but when I child is 2 or 3 years old they don't have the capabilities to realize right from wrong or good from dangerous.

but they do...

Anna Adrielle wrote:

but they do...

No they don't. You can explain it; but the need may be rather more pressing it it repeatedly ignores you and toddles off to a hot stove.

Eliza C wrote:
No they don't. You can explain it; but the need may be rather more pressing it it repeatedly ignores you and toddles off to a hot stove.

ah, the hot stove argument...

my grandmother used to have a burning hot stove in the living room. as long as she had grandchildren that were little (for a very, very long time... 21 grandchildren!), she put a fence around it when we were there.

tadaaa, no spanking! I never touched a hot stove because I could never get near one!

Farenell Photography wrote:
Your goals & scenarios are all well & good in an ideal world but the fact of the matter is, we DON'T live in an ideal world. You cannot control what your kids 24-7. Simple as that.

In trying to protect & coddle them 24-7, one of two things will likely happen. A-The parent will go bonkers trying to protect them from everything that comes their way. B-Protecting them from everything only pussifies them for later in life. We in America are so concerned about having our kids succeed that we don't ALLOW them to fuckup on their own. Little fuckups (like getting a bad grade or not making the sports team) are ok, big fuckups (like getting permeantly injured or starting fights because you can or theft) is not ok. I know you disagree but I'd rather tan their fanny for stealing a candy bar than at the age of 17 they get a 5-year mininum for grand theft auto.

I absolutely allowed my kids to fuck up. I would obviously step in if they tried to do something that was detrimental to their lives like drug addiction or getting HIV or getting pregnant. Or getting tattoos. Things like adjusting to live in society they were free to fuck up. I would tell them once "don't gossip, don't get involved in the he said, she said". They didn't listen, eventually the gossiping turned against them, they learned. If they stole a candy bar I would make them go back, return it and apologize. No need for violence. I didn't expect them to be perfect either because that would make me a hypocrite. I'm far from perfect myself.

Not hitting your kids doesn't take more time. I was a single parent for the last 10 years before my daughters moved out to live in their own.

Anna Adrielle wrote:

now now, be nice!

I am... 

Gianantonio wrote:

I am... 

you're not

Anna Adrielle wrote:
tadaaa, no spanking! I never touched a hot stove because I could never get near one!

I hope you knew WHY you shouldn't touch a hot stove.

Eliza C wrote:

Because you cannot reason with a two year old child; and you cannot reason with an untrained animal. You can use 'natural' horsemanship etc and that is especially effective with abused animals. But a horse naturally learns through warnings; as does a cat as does a dog....as do other primates. So a ntural environment communication will not involve language ...or rather, that physical warning is sometimes required for use by a herd leader when for example a horse does not move from another horse despite the ears back warning. Similarly a dog has to learn its place in the pack.

You can start to try to reason with a two year old child; but there may be times you need to deter and make sure that is understood immediately. The cow will not go near the electric fence again. The horse will respond to the whip if its back end wanders in front of a car on the road. IF they are used with restraint and in apt situiations. So the cow for example will not go near the fence even when the electricity is turned off; and the horse will be unlikely to wander about in the road again. And neither will the child. There is very little that is remarkable difference between the human brain and the animal brain.

You CAN reason with a horse sometimes more swiftly so in many ways the cognitive ability is better. A horse can quickly learn the word trot and do it; and learn 'no'. A very young child it takes rather longer.
http://www.equineresearch.org/support-f … ghorse.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ … 9.full.pdf

Of course you can reason with a two year old child!! 

Where do you get these ideas?

Gianantonio wrote:

Of course you can reason with a two year old child!! 

Where do you get these ideas?

LOL.

My sister and brother in law have been trying to "reason" with their 2 year old son who has a hitting problem. I personally think a swat on the ass would work, but who am I to say?

Gianantonio wrote:

Of course you can reason with a two year old child!! 

Where do you get these ideas?

Oh, I've tried it with a set of toddler twins and the reasoning goes in one ear and out the other!

Anna Adrielle wrote:

but they do...

Your joking right? She understood me so well that she choose not to listen to me and kept throwing her chair at me?