Bahamut.Jetackuu said: »
as to your response then you try something else that is also non-violent. You can be firm and show assertiveness without violence.
Kids have a *** meter and they often will challenge you if they sense weakness. What qualifies as "firm" and "assertive" to you? I don't blame children for acting the way they do as the behavior is the result of evolutionary processes (internal hierarchies) coupled with environmental stimuli but you're not giving me much to work with when you say that the solution is in non-violence.
Sometimes peace just doesn't work. I could use myself as an example but I fear that'd be labeled anecdotal evidence and hurled out, so I'll refrain.
Quote:
this wasn't meant to be another debate about it, more of a debate (asserting that it's actually harmful in the long run) whether or not their right to not be harmed is trumped. (or something like that.)
Children have the right to not be harmed without just cause. Slapping your kid because you're annoyed that their asking too many questions is wrong, beating your child because they got in the way of the TV during the big game is wrong but a parent using spanking to teach that negative behavior (like kicking someone or acting belligerent) has redeeming qualities if used properly. This is preferably used in conjunction with other tools tailored to fit each specific child.
The real problem is that most parents just don't give a damn about parenting and either resort to spanking for anything or let a child run hogwild straight through to social environments like school.
