What we do know is that most violent people were treated violently as
children. I agree that occasional punishment as you describe is unlikely
to be harmful, and my point is that there are often better alternatives.
>(Actually, even most kids who really are abused do not turn
> violent-there is ALWAYS a choice involved.)
Go back and read Alice Miller. I am not convinced that decisions made in
childhood represent true choices.
> I'm very happy you never
> have hit your kids. Good for you. However, do you really think your
> child rearing methods will work with any and all kids?
I only have to deal with a single case here, which works.
> At any rate, the
> idea that giving a kid a few whacks on the bottom once in a while
> (especially after the kid has been really bad, in this case he
> practically killed the family pet!) "perpetuates a cycle of violence" is
> just one of those cliches
> that I really don't find any empirical support for.
Your posting certainly had the rhetoric which comes from those who
espouse abuse as justified.... So I reponded to that.
> How do you explain
> the low crime rates in the U.S. from 1932-60 when many, if not most,
> parents were giving their kids an occasional spanking?
I think violence statistics have many more causes than occasional
spanking. I can't remember the logical fallacy here, does someone on the
list know the name of it??
> However, I really don't understand people who
> think that parents who have a different philosophy of discipline than
> they do are evil monsters who are turning their kids into sociopaths.
I think you are reading more into my post that what I was saying.
> By the way, I don't have kids. "Good", I'm sure you are thinking , Mr.
Well if you ever do so, be sure to examine the nonviolent child rearing
options available so you don't have to whack them...
| Hara Ra <firstname.lastname@example.org> |
| Box 8334 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 |