In terms of behavioural science research, corporal punishment is the least effective way to train a desired behaviour, so that should be reason enough to use other methods.

Personally speaking, I only remember getting smacked once, and although I won't say I "deserved it", I will say that I can understand it. Apart from that one incident (this was before kindergarten), my mother didn't even believe in grounding me for bad behaviour. We talked about why I wasn't supposed to do a thing and why it was better to behave differently.

Although I am not as capable an adult as I'd like to be, I turned out to be a hell of a responsible and conscientious one.

This is anecdotal, but it's an example that fits the research: Learning is best achieved when the punishment/reward are logically connected to the behaviour being trained. In my case, I learned that the effects of my behaviour on others is itself the punishment or reward, and that's where compassion and empathy begin.

EDIT: Afterthought. As much as I would (from time to time) really like to see adults get smacked for bad behaviour, we all acknowledge that this is unacceptable, so why is it alright to smack children? If anything, the adults should know better, so they're more deserving of a smacking tbh. Everyone is people.

If you can explain why it's wrong then why smack them in the first place?

lol that's even worse. Hitting a child when they are so young they can't even understand language is just disturbing to me.

Actually, this raises a good point. A child that young is not going to understand the consequences of the behaviour--smacking them is not going to teach them how to not be a little **** and be a good adult, it's just going to teach them not to do one behaviour.

In fact research demonstrates that when you punish children with corporal punishment, it teaches them how to get around punishment in the future. That is, they find ways to hide the bad behaviour and do it anyways, because they don't understand that it's the consequences of the behaviour that are bad--they associate "bad" with getting caught.

Further, the greater the length of time that passes between the bad behaviour and the punishment, the less effective the punishment is. If you come home from work, your kid has painted on the walls, and you smack them hours after it happened, that's just ****ing confusing for them because the punishment is not temporally related to the behaviour.

Finally, kids are waaaaaaaay more cognizant than we give them credit for, even at two or three years old. Just talk to them like you'd talk to a grown-up. They're more likely to listen, they're more likely to learn something, and they've got a much bigger receptive understanding of the world than we give them credit for.

Coming from a generation of children who were subject to mild corporal punshment I wholeheartily disagree.

Coming from a generation of children who were subject to mild corporal punshment I wholeheartily disagree.

Coming from a generation of children who were subject to mild corporal punshment I wholeheartily disagree.

Coming from a generation of children who were subject to mild corporal punshment I wholeheartily disagree.

**** science when you've got personal experience. You tell em chules.

mad ting

mad ting

mad ting

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeBRGAAIAAA8hKF.jpg

For every research paper from the anti-spanking side there's one from the spanking does no harm and is not inherently bad.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1....138.3.197-222

Oh right, I forgot we're living in a post-fact world and that our emotions supersede science. Sorry! I'll be on my delusional way. :)

I'm in the bathroom at a party rn. I'll hook Chula up with some meta analysis and an explanation of why meta analysis is good later unless ped does it first.

I'll let the American College of Pediatricians reply:

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-s...-is-misleading