Quote:
Originally Posted by Paedantic Basterd
Okay, well even without reading the article in full, the section you quoted stated that striking a child works as well as alternative methods. Not better than.
So see point (B) I have been making: If you don't have to hit someone, why the **** are you hitting them?
EDIT: Furthermore, "The researchers concluded that spanking disobedient 2- to 6-year-olds worked just as well at reforming their behavior as 13 alternative disciplinary approaches (such as giving a time-out, reasoning with a child, and taking away privileges) as long as the parent lovingly and rationally explained the reasons for the action."
So even in the material you quoted, the study suggests that it's the explanation that makes the difference in behaviour, not the hitting itself, so again, why the **** are you hitting someone??
EDIT 2: The article you cited literally says there are 13 OTHER ways to effectively train your child apart from hitting them. This is exactly what my point is. Your research backs me up entirely.
|
The article I cited shows both points of view but also goes on the state further that neither points of the debate are definite. It also backs up what I said earlier about the spank followed up with the explanation.
The spank is used to reinforce the warnings and to take them more seriously. The reason for the spanks is because explanations alone don't work.