Mac_Guffin wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:What is sadistic is the unwillingness to learn non-violent alternatives or the unwillingness to practice non-violent discipline after learning it.

There are nonviolent alternatives that are abusive where spanking is not. Why is it sadistic to refuse to resort to the abusive alternatives?

How are the alternatives abusive?

Let's take some examples of nonviolent alternatives.

My mother in law grew up being told and "you were an accident, we never wanted to have you" whenever she misbehaved. That left some serious emotional scars. My own mother, while she did a lot for us in other ways, used to get mad at us and scream things like "you make me want to kill myself by hanging" or "why don't you go kill yourself by hanging" when we misbehaved, which would probably have been similarly bad if my father hadn't undermined her by telling us she really still loved us and was just saying things she didn't mean because she was mad.

So obviously my father knew about at least that method of nonviolent discipline - frequent, emotionally hurtful verbal abuse - and chose not to switch to that method from his infrequent, disciplined use of spanking. His decision, far from being sadistic, was sensible and was the right decision from the standpoint of his children's emotional and psychological development.

I never said that all forms of non-violent discipline are acceptable.

Perhaps I should've said that there are non-violent and non-abusive alternatives to spanking, so there would've been no confusion.

Warren Dew wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:What is sadistic is the unwillingness to learn non-violent alternatives or the unwillingness to practice non-violent discipline after learning it.

There are nonviolent alternatives that are abusive where spanking is not. Why is it sadistic to refuse to resort to the abusive alternatives?

How are the alternatives abusive?

Let's take some examples of nonviolent alternatives.

My mother in law grew up being told and "you were an accident, we never wanted to have you" whenever she misbehaved. That left some serious emotional scars. My own mother, while she did a lot for us in other ways, used to get mad at us and scream things like "you make me want to kill myself by hanging" or "why don't you go kill yourself by hanging" when we misbehaved, which would probably have been similarly bad if my father hadn't undermined her by telling us she really still loved us and was just saying things she didn't mean because she was mad.

So obviously my father knew about at least that method of nonviolent discipline - frequent, emotionally hurtful verbal abuse - and chose not to switch to that method from his infrequent, disciplined use of spanking. His decision, far from being sadistic, was sensible and was the right decision from the standpoint of his children's emotional and psychological development.

Those sound worse than spanking. But that doesn't validate spanking.

Mac_Guffin wrote:I never said that all forms of non-violent discipline are acceptable.

Perhaps I should've said that there are non-violent and non-abusive alternatives to spanking, so there would've been no confusion.

Well, people keep claiming that there are nonviolent and nonabusive methods of discipline, but no one has actually described any in enough detail to be convincing. As far as I remember, the only method of discipline that has been described in detail in this thread was Seth's, which involves corporal punishment as discipline, in this post and follow ups:

post132406.html#p132290

The only other method of parenting that has been described in detail here is the one I described in this thread:

education-parenting/spanking-t1075-190.html#p133036

My method does not involve spanking, but that's because it involves no discipline at all. It may work for our parenting situation, but I suspect it will not work for all parenting situations, for reasons illustrated in the following recent incident.

Our family was walking on the sidewalk along the busiest street in Cambridge. My daughter was walking at her usual inconsistent pace with her hand on my finger, while my wife was walking ahead carrying our 2 month old son.

At any rate, with my daughter pausing to peer into every restaurant window, my wife got to a crosswalk and crossed to the other side of the street ahead of us. Then the light changed.

Now, our method of training seems to prevent our daughter from rushing out into the street for random distractions. Having her mommy separated from her by a wide street was more than a random distraction, though. This was made worse by the fact that she recently found out her Au Pair will have to go home soon, so she's paranoid about being abandoned by her mommy too. So she dashed for the street just as the traffic started moving.

Or, at least, she tried to. I'd been keeping track of my wife's location, so I saw the situation developing, and I'd tightened my grip on my daughter's hand and moved slightly ahead of her. That prevented her from rushing off and allowed me to physically restrain her until the light changed again and we could cross. It also helped that my wife realized what had happened and stopped on the other side, rather than continuing to walk away.

I doubt very much that the sharp "no" I rely on as a backup would have worked when my daughter thought her mommy was leaving her. Another parent using my technique for their different situation might have been faced with a toddler just flattened by a car. A moment of parental inattention might be enough, or simply a situation with more kids than adults.

In contrast, Seth's trained "no", operating at a more primitive neural level, probably would still stop a kid for the fraction of a second needed to physically pick him up. It's more reliable.

Now, I like cats better than dogs, so I'm still not going to use Seth's training regimen. I think my method does work - for me and my daughter. However, I'm not foolish enough to think that what's right for me is necessarily what's right for everyone.

My own mother, while she did a lot for us in other ways, used to get mad at us and scream things like "you make me want to kill myself by hanging" or "why don't you go kill yourself by hanging" when we misbehaved, which would probably have been similarly bad if my father hadn't undermined her by telling us she really still loved us and was just saying things she didn't mean because she was mad.

Chinese mothers are very good at using guilt

Warren Dew wrote:
Well, people keep claiming that there are nonviolent and nonabusive methods of discipline, but no one has actually described any in enough detail to be convincing.

May I introduce to you to Rudolf Dreikurs?

natselrox wrote:Now that we're done with spanking the kids, can we discuss about spanking our wives/girlfriends and then the elderly?

Spanking wives and girlfriends goes under fetishes.

Warren Dew wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I never said that all forms of non-violent discipline are acceptable.

Perhaps I should've said that there are non-violent and non-abusive alternatives to spanking, so there would've been no confusion.

Well, people keep claiming that there are nonviolent and nonabusive methods of discipline, but no one has actually described any in enough detail to be convincing. As far as I remember, the only method of discipline that has been described in detail in this thread was Seth's, which involves corporal punishment as discipline, in this post and follow ups:

post132406.html#p132290

I haven't described it in detail because there's not one fix-all solution. Give me a situation, and I'll suggest something.
I'll give one that's related (I may have already mentioned this.): Say, a child is climbing on something, endangering themselves. 1st, tell them firmly, but without anger the consequences of their actions. The second time, follow through with them. Sit them down, and if they move (Do not give them a chance to go far.), sit them right back down. Ignore any plea they might give, and demonstrate that your will is stronger than theirs.
You must assert yourself as the alpha, as Seth said, but unlike Seth, I don't think violence (even mild violence... it's a slippery slope) is needed to do so.

Of course, if you start off setting a good example, as you have, there is little to no need for discipline.

I want to apologize for my strong words against Seth.
I should've kept my emotions in check, and just counter his arguments rather than get emotional.
I just had no previous knowledge of some of the things he mentioned (snapping), and it caught me off guard.
I'm human.

Mac_Guffin wrote:I want to apologize for my strong words against Seth.
I should've kept my emotions in check, and just counter his arguments rather than get emotional.
I just had no previous knowledge of some of the things he mentioned (snapping), and it caught me off guard.
I'm human.

Apology accepted.

[quote="Mac_Guffin
I'll give one that's related (I may have already mentioned this.): Say, a child is climbing on something, endangering themselves.[/quote]

My suggestion for this (and I'm assuming you're talking about a very young child) is to simply redirect him to something else, maybe even something safer for him to climb on. Young children just need to be supervised constantly. Show him what he can do, don't just tell him what he can't do. You can also tell him that it's dangerous in his language to reinforce the message. Even if he's 3 or 4, you can simply tell him "uh-oh, that's dangerous. Let's find something else for you to do." Giving him some options can go a long way.

NamelessFaceless wrote:
My suggestion for this (and I'm assuming you're talking about a very young child) is to simply redirect him to something else, maybe even something safer for him to climb on. Young children just need to be supervised constantly. Show him what he can do, don't just tell him what he can't do. You can also tell him that it's dangerous in his language to reinforce the message. Even if he's 3 or 4, you can simply tell him "uh-oh, that's dangerous. Let's find something else for you to do." Giving him some options can go a long way.

Yup. It's really not complicated. Distract, redirect. And yes, constant supervision is a big part of being a parent.

My suggestion for this (and I'm assuming you're talking about a very young child) is to simply redirect him to something else, maybe even something safer for him to climb on. Young children just need to be supervised constantly. Show him what he can do, don't just tell him what he can't do. You can also tell him that it's dangerous in his language to reinforce the message. Even if he's 3 or 4, you can simply tell him "uh-oh, that's dangerous. Let's find something else for you to do." Giving him some options can go a long way.

That's even better.

I don't actually think this stuff is all that hard if you don't want to hit your kids, you just have to not hit them, and while it might be difficult to figure out what to do instead when it's an abstract question, when you have kids it's not so hard, so long as you commit to it.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Valden wrote:

mmmcheezy wrote:Jesus, haven't any of these people heard of "time out"??

No.

Super Nanny should have a word with them.

Time outs can be just as ineffective, and even as counterproductive, as spanking. The tricky part is that we have to figure out what is causing the problem behavior to begin with - if the kid is throwing a tantrum to get attention, then spanking them would be ridiculously stupid. Likewise, if the kid is throwing a tantrum because they are overstimulated, or don't want to do their work etc, then sticking them in timeout is also ridiculously stupid. The issue with each case is that you're simply giving the child what they want and making their behavior more likely to occur again.

Whilst spanking does have it's negative effects, there is also a rising misconception which is probably fucking up just as many kids - and that's the myth that children act out because they're "attention seekers" and that "time-out will fix them". (Whilst I wouldn't argue against the efficacy of time-out, the problem is it being applied as a panacea).

Of course, it should be done as a case by case basis. But there should also be consistency as well.

Valden wrote:

Of course, it should be done as a case by case basis. But there should also be consistency as well.

Consistency in what sense? Consistency as in you punish the same behavior every time - Yes. Consistency as in you try to use to same punishment methods for different behaviors - No. In addition to the fact that time-out is a very bad thing to give following some behaviors, there's also evidence to suggest that different punishments following the same behavior will eliminate the behavior more effectively. And I think there's an argument for making the punishment "behavior-specific", so if the child slams the door a good punishment is to make them close the door properly over and over and over again. (I can't remember if there was a significant difference in efficacy for this approach though as it's been a while since I've read up on the topic).

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Valden wrote:

Of course, it should be done as a case by case basis. But there should also be consistency as well.

Consistency in what sense? Consistency as in you punish the same behavior every time - Yes.

Agreed.

Consistency as in you try to use to same punishment methods for different behaviors - No.

Agreed.

In addition to the fact that time-out is a very bad thing to give following some behaviors, there's also evidence to suggest that different punishments following the same behavior will eliminate the behavior more effectively. And I think there's an argument for making the punishment "behavior-specific", so if the child slams the door a good punishment is to make them close the door properly over and over and over again. (I can't remember if there was a significant difference in efficacy for this approach though as it's been a while since I've read up on the topic).

Agreed.
Btw, the door slamming thing actually works. My elder brother used to slam his door when he threw a fit. So our mother made him close it slowly and softly for over an hour.
He never did it again.

Valden wrote:
Btw, the door slamming thing actually works. My elder brother used to slam his door when he threw a fit. So our mother made him close it slowly and softly for over an hour.
He never did it again.

Nice one. And yeah it definitely does work, it's called "Overcorrection" and it has a large amount of research to back it up.

Reminds me of how I always used to forget to turn off the light when I left a room. My dad would call me in, and make me turn the light on and off [saying "on" and "off" each time] until he was satisfied. I never forget now.