Are you saying you condone hitting children because you can have a conversation with them? When you start by saying that hitting children is OK because they aren't as smart as adults, that makes it very easy to extrapolate the idea down to dogs, who also are routinely disciplined. However, the difference is that it is pretty unanimous that we don't hit dogs, so I'm just trying to show you the absolute horror show it is to treat a pet you can't communicate with better than your actual child.
I'm showing your double standards by way of showing that you have higher standards for dogs than you do for kids, yet you use the argument of being "less smart" towards your kids, but somehow that doesn't extrapolate to dogs. It doesn't follow. We all have a feeling that hitting pets isn't OK.
well, joke's on you -- I've absolutely hit my pets. In fact I don't know too many people with pets who didn't at some point...? Not sure where this "unanimous" is coming from.
And, yes, the reason is because with children, you can clearly communicate with them. If they disobey you, it's because they
chose to disobey you. Not because they didn't
understand, or lacked the capacity to understand, as would be the case with most pets.
Children are not dumb, they're ignorant. I would never condone physical punishment against an entity that doesn't understand
why its happening to them. At that point it's cruelty, only at the benefit of the person causing the pain.
And by that extension, I would never condone hitting a child for an offense they honestly didn't (or couldn't) understand when it happened.
It's not about them loving you or not, as a matter of fact, physically abused kids and pets alike may strive for love in an unhealthy manner, just the same way someone in an abusive relationship strives for the love of their abuser. That is not to say that that is what always happens, but it is part of why we don't hit our dogs. It creates insecurities and lack of confidence. It is the exact same thing shown in research about kids.
This is probably true. A child who's immediate reaction to something going wrong being imminent pain is absolutely a negative response.
But like you said...that doesn't always happen. Hence:
Technique, use, and thus effectiveness may vary
I'm trying to show you that your tolerance for hitting children comes from nothing but culture. There is no good argument to do it, other than the fact that it is acceptable, and that the fear is instilled is undermined for the efficacy of instilling that fear. I think measuring the effectiveness of hitting children in how much you can scare them into not doing something is a terrible metric to use when raising children.
There are plenty of good arguments to spanking your child. You just refuse to accept them. I mean, it's really just that simple.
i'm willing to agree that never having to cause pain to your child is probably ideal...but
not really, because people aren't ideal creatures, and i don't know how useful that statement will ever be.
You seem to believe that violence is something that should always be avoided, but you refuse to accept that violence is a part of human nature that
can't be avoided.
Every time i step into one of these bully threads, and read about how people let a single person emotionally wreck them with stress on a day-to-day basis (because their parents never taught them how to appropriately apply violence to protect themselves), it's honestly a bit sad.
But different strokes for different folks i guess
