But with my kids, I never did that. First it seemed the literature was against it. But I wasn't very confident in that by itself. Punishment data could be too dependent on other factors. Like reports of having a lot of books in the house being a good thing -- it's more an indicator of what kind of family you are in the first place.
The reason I cannot spank my kids is that I cannot find a rationally justifiable reason to, ethically. How can i answer if my kids say "Michael, why are you allowed to hit us?" I'm assaulting because I've physical superiority and legal protection! That does not sound defensible, even if the ends is that it'll make them a better person (which isn't clear).
In general, I've treated them as the autonomous beings they are. I enforce some things against their will (e.g. try to limit shit food and shit TV). But there, the reason is because they lack the understanding to make good decisions. But violating them physically - using direct pain as a response to a non-physical threat - seems to have no logical path allowing it.
If you hit an adult, it's assault.
If you hit a dog, it's animal abuse.
If you hit your spouse, it's domestic violence.
But hitting your child is not just legal, it's encouraged by many. People will spare no effort rationalizing justifications for it.
To see how preposterous this is, use the reversal test.[1] If hitting children was unheard of, do you think society would move toward doing it? We've eliminated corporal punishment in almost every other domain. Drill sergeants can't hit soldiers. Even hitting prisoners is a violation of the 8th Amendment. Hitting children is historical cruft that needs to be eliminated.
Edit: You removed the line saying you would hit your children. Well, at least I've quoted it.
> Edit: You removed the line saying you would hit your children. Well, at least I've quoted it.
Yes, I wanted to A/B test which paragraph was causing the down-votes.
Second, violence is not acceptable as punishment, but it is acceptable (often necessary) in defense of self and others. If people are fighting, it's fine to break them up. That said, I doubt a larger adult needs to resort to blows to stop two kids fighting.
Third, there are plenty of punishments that don't involve hitting. It's common to restrict access to TV or games. If all else fails, there's the dreaded, "No phone for a week."
Except, of course, if you're limiting the TV anyways, and you don't allow kids to have (smart-)phones.
In general, I agree, there are other kinds of punishment, but they might sometimes not be effective. Then what?
And if you try beating your child and it doesn't work, what then?
Physical violence is used by bad perents who don't know effective methods of discipline.
Did you read the article? Research shows that corporal punishment can be effective, if done in the right way (i.e. don'y hit your kids when they are angry).
> Physical violence is used by bad perents who don't know effective methods of discipline.
We disagree with the definition of bad parent, apparently. I think my parents were very good. Of course, as I said initially, they very rarely resorted to physical punishment, but me and my brother knew that the threat was credible. Of course, I don't think any of their friends would agree with them, but then, none of them had comparably active and difficult children.