Robert,

Thanks for the further info.

"The first part is similar to David's point about some kids being different natures to other kids." When I alluded to that I didn't realize David had typed it.

"...corporal punishment, rather than being a cause of later antisocial, may be a consequence early child behavior problem behavior, which carries over into adulthood."

That is an important consideration for this type of research particularly since research has shown that misbehaviour causes the punishment (which isn't too surprising but there are other possibilities)

"However there are at least seven longitudinal studies which show that although misbehavior does cause corporal punishment and does result in cessation of the misbehavior at the time, in the longer run use of corporal punishment boomerangs in the sense of increasing the probability of subsequent antisocial behavior (Straus, 2001; Straus & Medeiros, 2008)."

That of course begs the questions of what caused the misbehaviour initially and if similar people in a culture that eschewed corporal punishment would also exhibit later antisocial behaviour less the cessation at the time.

FIRMNESS..PREDICTABILITY..CONSISTENCY..CREATIVITY.. with love or patience and empathy seems like a good list.

Something that annoys me is when people virtually train a child to misbehave in a particular way and then come down hard on them when they do so. For example some parents find some behaviour cute the first time but then punish when the child repeats the encouraged behaviour.

I've been thinking about the "spanking" issue.

I want to make it clear that I feel there is a "right" kind of spanking and a "wrong" kind. By the wrong kind I mean a cruel and sadistic beating. This fills a child with hatred, and a deep desire for revenge. This is the kind that is administered with a strap or stick or some other type of parental "weapon." Or it could also mean a humiliating slap in the face.

The right kind of spanking needs no special paraphernalia. Just the hand of the parent administered a few times on the child's bottom.
The right kind of spanking is a positive thing. It clears the air, and is vastly to be preferred to moralistic and guilt-inducing parental lectures.

You've heard the old saying, "Never strike a child in anger."
I feel that is psychologically very poor advice, and I suggest the opposite: "Never strike a child except in anger."

A child can understand very well when you strike them in anger. They know you're mad at them and they understand why. What a child can't understand is when they disobey their mother at 10am and she tells them, "All right, your father will deal with you when he gets home!"
Then when Dad arrives home he is expected to administer a spanking which will "really teach the child a lesson." That's the kind of
cold-blooded spanking a child can't either understand or forgive.

What I advocate is - spank your child only when you are furious at them and feel like letting them have it right then. Too many mums seem to be afraid to spank their children. They talk and nag a great deal as a substitute; they try to negotiate with a child. This is a huge mistake because it reduces their authority as parents.

If we were 100 percent perfect parents, we would all be so mature we would never need to spank our kids - life doesn't work that way.

Good stuff Foxy!

Quite an interesting thread... many great thoughts.

ROBERT.... seeing as you stuck closest to the topic I'll engage with your post specifically here.(having wandered around a bit myself in the last couple)

I do agree that it comes back to a choice... and don't feel the need to argue that with you.

Yes, we choose a moral framework.. our Creator and His law, but most of all, the relationship. Creator/Created.
At the age of 3, that's not something we can easily communicate, but as the children age, it becomes easier. We surround them with a moral framework, not a straight jacket. Within that framework, they know they have a choice. We can't 'inject' a dose of faith into their veins.. we have to live it and love them into the kingdom.

They realize also, that not everyone shares that framework or faith.
But I'm encouraged by those who have gone astray then returned with the testimony "I never stopped believing deep down, but I just wanted my own way, now.. I'm back"

The prodigal had a fine time.... lots of 'friends'..until the cash ran out....then he had to eat with the pigs... some of us need to be reduced to that point b4 we take the hint.
The 'flesh' can be a lot of fun when it is well financed, but when the money runs out.. you have less than nothing...no friends and no dignity

BD,

Celivia has already expressed my views on your response to both her post and mine.

I used to think you were just annoying because you didn't think before you wrote, but now I'm not so sure. You can behave like a really nasty piece of work at times: if it is because of your haste to rush into print with no consideration of the feelings of others then that doesn't paint a very pretty picture. But if, as I am beginning to think, you post the things you do deliberately, using the "I'm harmless - I'm a Christian" mask then that is worse. In either case its time you took responsibility for your words.

Shouting "Christian, Christian" as a preface to all the slighting, contemptuous, sly and downright unpleasant things you say denigrates all the honest Christians on these threads. Personally, I couldn't give a rats whatever your denomination is. To pharaphrase Forest Gump "Nasty is as nasty does".

For goodness sake take some responsibility for what you say, man. I have yet to hear you ever apologise to anyone who was not a BD clone. I don't remember having heard you concede - without qualification - that anyone with whom you disagree could be right. I have no recollection of you ever expressing contrition for the times you have hurt others feelings. And the only response I can remember when you have been found exaggerating or twisting the truth to the point of telling porkies is self-justification. Nor have I ever seen a simple declarative "I'm sorry" from you.

Your fellows beings, with all their faults, strengths, sorrows and dreams sit behind the computers which post the words you read. What gives you the right to spread your wicked judgmentalism around these threads like acid rain?

Dear Romany

you've got me quite concerned here.

I'm scratching my poor old noggin in wonder about 'which' bit in all my posts thus far to this thread, constitutes 'wicked judgementalism'?

Can you help me out here?

As far as I know I've been courteous..and if other posters can alert me to this 'wicked judgementalism'(in this thread).. then please do so.

That was quite an attack you know...
-"your a nasty piece of work"
-"I used to think you were just annoying, because you didn't think b4 you typed, but now.. I think it's deliberate"..

err..'what' is 'deliberate'? Do you mean by any chance that I write from a Christian perspective?

I hope not, because even though I write from a different viewpoint, to give me a list of horrible names and brand me like that is .. well.. maybe you could re-think that a tad?

...and here I was thinking that you have made a positive and helpful contribution to the discussion...now I'm wondering.

May I respectfully refer you to my very first 2 posts, and draw your attention to the actual point of the thread? thanks