Spanking and physical discipline: what are your thoughts?

feralranger said:It’s futile; he’ll just come crawling back. And honestly, you aren't going to be able to tie him down.

George Davis6 As the saying goes:
Finding a way to distract a child by pivoting their interest toward something entirely different—well, I have found that this tactic works remarkably well in a staggering number of situations.

Zero points in the long run—everything works if you only care about the short term. Do you honestly believe that’s some groundbreaking concept she hasn't already mastered?

I find myself staring at this particular statement, and I cannot help but feel a profound sense of exhaustion at its sheer absurdity. It is truly remarkable how we continue to circle the same drain, over and over again, without ever actually making any progress toward a sensible conclusion. One might almost call it a Herculean task just to maintain a shred of sanity while navigating these repetitive cycles, though even that seems like an overly generous description of our current predicament.

Do you honestly believe she’s oblivious to what he’s saying? Please. The woman is a professional psychologist; she’s spent her entire career studying the human mind, yet she’s essentially centered her whole existence around her only child. She hasn't had much else going on in her life besides him. And despite all that expertise, the boy has turned into such a notorious bully that his entire school district knows him by name.

So, where does the father fit into all this?

Richard Nelson84 said:Parenting is about so much more than whether a child faced physical or psychological abuse. Just because you see a link between hitting a kid and their behavior—or following a strict manual and seeing bad results—doesn't mean one caused the other. There are way too many moving parts in raising a human being to claim that any single method is the sole factor in how a child behaves now or grows up to be later.

What we can talk about are general trends based on different parenting styles. For example, statistics show a trend where bullies often come from homes that lean heavily on physical discipline. Meanwhile, victims are frequently kids who were either overprotected by their moms or, conversely, those who felt neglected. But again, that’s just one tiny slice of a much bigger pie.

🙏🙏🙏

the voice of reason.

Look, I'm talking about physical punishment used within liberal families that follow an authoritative style—families actually interested in raising healthy, functional adults.

Like I said before, a parent has to cover the kid's emotional and material needs first. When a parent warns a kid about danger and they ignore it, they learn two things: a) the consequence of their actions, and b) that the parent was right about the risk.

That builds respect for the parent as an authority figure working in the kid's best interest. That's where physical discipline comes in. In the kind of household I'm describing, the kid understands the parent reacted that way for their own good because the situation was genuinely dangerous.

You guys are debating... I don't even know what you're talking about. 🤷

Some guy claims he's a thief today because his ass hurt after being spanked, but look at the other side—some kid gets hit once and grows up to be the President.🤣

Steven Murphy2 said:I went through all that hell, and honestly? The result is just as depressing as what you see with kids who have parents that fold at the first sign of trouble. I basically saw enemies everywhere inside my own house—it was like being under siege—so I figured if the streets were gonna be my real classroom since my folks couldn't put food on the table, then fine, let's go. And you know what? I actually turned out better than those spoiled brats with soft parents who could just slide their way into easy money through shady means. But man, that feeling of getting physically punished as a kid... it’s like being stuck in a cell with nothing but a guard staring you down, just counting the seconds until you can finally break free.

Aha, so your mom smacked your ass once and that's why the streets raised you.

Alright, moving on... let me write a bit about why it’s vital for a kid to understand that their actions have consequences.

When parents overprotect a kid from everything—especially negative outcomes (like if the kid messes up and the parent rushes in to fix it)—that kid never learns that actions have CONSEQUENCES. When we teach kids that what they do matters, we're actually teaching them how to make their own choices and how to avoid bad outcomes (I’m talking a smack on the butt here, not, you know, assault or something.

In cases where kids are shielded from seeing the fallout of their behavior, they grow up unable to correctly link results to their own actions. Decision-making in adulthood isn't just the simple stuff: like having three candy bars to choose from, where it's easy to pick one (or you're too indecisive to pick any at all).

It goes deeper than that. It's a process where a person realizes that if they combine A and B, they get result C. If a kid never sees the consequences, they'll head from A to B without ever considering the end result. Basically, a person enjoys the process for whatever subjective reasons, but they either don't want the final outcome or can't predict it.

Okay, I'm overcomplicating this... fine, here's a totally unrealistic, hypothetical example.
Someone is hiking through the woods toward a bungee jumping site. They're stoked, singing: "YAY BUNGEE IS COOL, LALALA bungee mungee lala lungee." 🤣🤣 Then an indecisive person comes along, hears them singing, and joins in. Since singing "bungee mungee lala" is fun, they walk through the woods together, having a blast. But then they reach the actual bungee jumping spot—the goal. Person A, who was singing about it, is thrilled because the whole trip was leading to this. Person B (the indecisive one) finally sees what's actually happening—they're expected to jump—and they aren't interested. So they just turn around and leave. Because Person B enjoyed the walk and the singing, but didn't account for the destination, once they hit the goal, they're out. Get what I'm saying?

Or take a guy hitting on a woman with sexual undertones. She plays along because she thinks it's fun, like a game or something. Then the guy expects sex, but the woman doesn't realize that's where this is heading and just wanders off to do something else she finds fun. The guy feels provoked or like there was some ulterior motive, when really, there wasn't.

It's the same thing with reading between the lines. You say something to someone to imply a point, but they don't grasp your direction or your target; they only hear the literal words. It's the same A+B=C formula for everything.

People like that cause total chaos in life. Why? Because the other person—who usually has a clear goal in mind (which is most people, let's be real)—assumes they're on the same page because they're acting like it. Then suddenly, they pivot, and you realize they weren't. It's similar to the chaos caused by people who struggle with emotional attachment but then suddenly want something intensely. They push hard to get something, the other side builds an emotional connection, and then these people just vanish because they don't build those connections. So, who's to blame? We could throw ASPD or BPD diagnoses at everyone at this point 😬

Look, I get that most people won't see how this all connects, but it does. This is how I reached the conclusion that physical discipline should be used as a consequence for bad behavior. Kids won't always understand exactly where they're headed in the moment. But if a parent gives you *that* look—you know what that means, you're screwed—you move. Simple.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:Alright, moving on... let me write a bit about why it’s vital for a kid to understand that their actions have consequences.

When parents overprotect a kid from everything—especially negative outcomes (like if the kid messes up and the parent rushes in to fix it)—that kid never learns that actions have CONSEQUENCES. When we teach kids that what they do matters, we're actually teaching them how to make their own choices and how to avoid bad outcomes (I’m talking a smack on the butt here, not, you know, assault or something.

In cases where kids are shielded from seeing the fallout of their behavior, they grow up unable to correctly link results to their own actions. Decision-making in adulthood isn't just the simple stuff: like having three candy bars to choose from, where it's easy to pick one (or you're too indecisive to pick any at all).

It goes deeper than that. It's a process where a person realizes that if they combine A and B, they get result C. If a kid never sees the consequences, they'll head from A to B without ever considering the end result. Basically, a person enjoys the process for whatever subjective reasons, but they either don't want the final outcome or can't predict it.

Okay, I'm overcomplicating this... fine, here's a totally unrealistic, hypothetical example.
Someone is hiking through the woods toward a bungee jumping site. They're stoked, singing: "YAY BUNGEE IS COOL, LALALA bungee mungee lala lungee." 🤣🤣 Then an indecisive person comes along, hears them singing, and joins in. Since singing "bungee mungee lala" is fun, they walk through the woods together, having a blast. But then they reach the actual bungee jumping spot—the goal. Person A, who was singing about it, is thrilled because the whole trip was leading to this. Person B (the indecisive one) finally sees what's actually happening—they're expected to jump—and they aren't interested. So they just turn around and leave. Because Person B enjoyed the walk and the singing, but didn't account for the destination, once they hit the goal, they're out. Get what I'm saying?

Or take a guy hitting on a woman with sexual undertones. She plays along because she thinks it's fun, like a game or something. Then the guy expects sex, but the woman doesn't realize that's where this is heading and just wanders off to do something else she finds fun. The guy feels provoked or like there was some ulterior motive, when really, there wasn't.

It's the same thing with reading between the lines. You say something to someone to imply a point, but they don't grasp your direction or your target; they only hear the literal words. It's the same A+B=C formula for everything.

People like that cause total chaos in life. Why? Because the other person—who usually has a clear goal in mind (which is most people, let's be real)—assumes they're on the same page because they're acting like it. Then suddenly, they pivot, and you realize they weren't. It's similar to the chaos caused by people who struggle with emotional attachment but then suddenly want something intensely. They push hard to get something, the other side builds an emotional connection, and then these people just vanish because they don't build those connections. So, who's to blame? We could throw ASPD or BPD diagnoses at everyone at this point 😬

Look, I get that most people won't see how this all connects, but it does. This is how I reached the conclusion that physical discipline should be used as a consequence for bad behavior. Kids won't always understand exactly where they're headed in the moment. But if a parent gives you *that* look—you know what that means, you're screwed—you move. Simple.

I haven't read every single comment yet, so I might have missed some context—do you actually have kids of your own?
Once you have them, everything I'm saying will suddenly make perfect sense to you.😁

Daniel Alvarez7 said:I haven't read every single comment yet, so I might have missed some context—do you actually have kids of your own?
Once you have them, everything I'm saying will suddenly make perfect sense to you.😁

Nothing.

Daniel Kelly57 said:Look, let’s be real—as soon as you start posting, people are gonna come for you. Maybe it was your folks giving you a hard time or just growing up with parents who knew how to raise you right through tone and volume. Personally, my mom laid it down for me twice when I was a kid, and I haven't missed a beat since. 🍿

Nobody's ever laid a finger on me, and I don't recall ever catching a charge for anything.

Growing up, I felt like I was being grounded or punished almost every single day, and honestly, there were times when I didn't even understand why I was getting hit. I guess that’s why I’m a little bit crazy today 😁 If I ever had kids of my own, I suppose I might be a bit physical with them too, though not out of spite—just if it felt absolutely necessary in the moment.

I work as a counselor at one of our state juvenile detention centers here in the States.
It’s gotten to the point where the kids are actually getting physical with the staff. Sadly.
Non-violence usually just breeds more violence.
When some 16-year-old decides to swing at me, talking my way out of it isn't really an option.
So, I signed up for self-defense classes. :klap:

feralranger said:Furthermore, that was actually a very specific contribution to our discussion. It isn't just some vague analogy; stripping away someone's physical freedom of movement is precisely that—it is the deprivation of physical liberty. That element of punishment is, quite simply, physical. The psychological distress resulting from that loss of freedom constitutes the mental component of the penalty.

As I have already stated, every punishment is either physical, psychological, or a combination of both. There is no third option. And that is precisely why you haven't been able to propose a third category, have you? The fact that this doesn't align with your preconceived notions is entirely irrelevant. The facts remain as they are.

Sure, it’s absolutely your prerogative to label blatant imputation and projection as a "specific contribution."

feralranger said:Furthermore, that was actually a very specific contribution to our discussion. It isn't just some vague analogy; stripping away someone's physical freedom of movement is precisely that—it is the deprivation of physical liberty. That element of punishment is, quite simply, physical. The psychological distress resulting from that loss of freedom constitutes the mental component of the penalty.

As I have already stated, every punishment is either physical, psychological, or a combination of both. There is no third option. And that is precisely why you haven't been able to propose a third category, have you? The fact that this doesn't align with your preconceived notions is entirely irrelevant. The facts remain as they are.

Prison and punishing a child by grounding them for the weekend simply cannot be compared, no matter how many similarities you think you've found. I don't want to have to repeat myself:

Andrew Doyle said:You’re putting words in my mouth. I never even claimed that children should be sent to prison; I was simply steering the conversation back to the actual point at hand. The fact that a prison represents a specific type of punitive structure is an entirely separate debate and has absolutely nothing to do with our current topic. What we were discussing was an analogy regarding punishment. Your attempt to compare adult incarceration to a child being grounded as part of a disciplinary measure is completely absurd. It's like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison to be made here, especially when you look at the psychological implications. The two things are worlds apart.

Let’s get one thing straight: setting boundaries and implementing specific disciplinary methods isn't some coordinated assault on a child's self-esteem, their integrity, or their sense of self. That is a fundamentally flawed way to look at parenting. Instead, we need to view these actions through a much more pragmatic lens—they are simply responses to specific, undesirable situations that arise in real-time. We have to stop conflating guidance with cruelty. Every corrective measure taken should never be intended as psychological or physical punishment. In fact, "punishment" shouldn't even be the goal. If you think the purpose of discipline is to inflict suffering, then you aren't parenting; you're just being punitive. Real discipline is about managing behavior in the moment, not tearing down a child's spirit.

Andrew Doyle said:Bolded—what a "productive" contribution to the debate. 👍

Now, let's address what you were rambling about earlier. No, this isn't just a matter of being "quantitative," nor can it be reduced to such a narrow view. Regardless of whether you like it or not, these situations trigger an entire spectrum of emotional challenges. The mere reality of existential and life-threatening vulnerability is enough to completely dismantle your little analogy.

feralranger said:Furthermore, that was actually a very specific contribution to our discussion. It isn't just some vague analogy; stripping away someone's physical freedom of movement is precisely that—it is the deprivation of physical liberty. That element of punishment is, quite simply, physical. The psychological distress resulting from that loss of freedom constitutes the mental component of the penalty.

As I have already stated, every punishment is either physical, psychological, or a combination of both. There is no third option. And that is precisely why you haven't been able to propose a third category, have you? The fact that this doesn't align with your preconceived notions is entirely irrelevant. The facts remain as they are.

Honestly, up until this very second, I wasn't even aware anyone was actually looking for some mythical "third" category in this debate.

Azzura As stated by:
It is, of course, entirely your prerogative to characterize such blatant imputation and projection as a "meaningful contribution."

But I haven't actually imputed anything. That is an objective fact. Your elaborate little logical constructions simply do not constitute proof that I have committed any such "imputation."

"Quote"

Azzura As expressed by: To suggest that locking a child away or punishing them by withholding weekend outings is somehow comparable to actual imprisonment is a stretch, regardless of how many superficial similarities one might attempt to draw between the two. I shall refrain from repeating myself:

I am truly at a loss as to what part of this remains unclear, such that I find myself compelled to reiterate the point once more. Both incarceration and house arrest share an identical physical component—the outright deprivation of one's freedom of movement—as well as a shared psychological dimension: that pervasive, lingering sense of misery that inevitably follows such a restriction.

Azzura As stated by:
Until this very moment, I wasn't even aware that anyone was actually looking for a "third" option in this discussion.

It is quite beside the point. House arrest is essentially a dual-layered punishment, acting as both a physical and psychological sentence. It isn't merely a restriction on one's movement, nor is it strictly a mental burden; since there is no third category to speak of, one is forced to conclude it is a seamless combination of the two.

darkcanyon10 As stated by:
I currently serve as a counselor at one of our local American juvenile detention centers.
It has finally reached that unfortunate breaking point where we are seeing young people actually laying hands on their educators. It is truly a regrettable state of affairs.
It is my firm belief that nonviolence frequently serves as nothing more than the fertile soil in which violence takes root.
When a sixteen-year-old kid decides to charge at me with a clenched fist, I find that my vocabulary—no matter how carefully curated—tends to lose its efficacy quite rapidly.
I have officially enrolled in a self-defense course. 👏

It is simply the logical conclusion. The sheer absurdity of these extremes is becoming quite exhausting, isn't it? We seem to have drifted into a state where nuance has been completely abandoned in favor of these sweeping, polarized caricatures that leave absolutely no room for middle ground. It’s as if we’ve collectively decided that anything less than a total, uncompromising stance is somehow a form of intellectual cowardice. Honestly, watching the discourse unfold lately feels like a relentless exercise in futility—a bit like a modern-day Sisyphus, only instead of a boulder, we're pushing an ever-growing mountain of irrationality up a hill, only to have it roll right back over our heads. One can't help but feel a certain weary detachment when everything is framed as an all-or-nothing battle between two equally unhinged camps. It all boils down to that mindless, blind acceptance of whatever happens to be trending at any given moment—a sort of intellectual surrender where one simply swallows everything whole without the slightest hint of critical thought or scrutiny.

Andrew Doyle said:You’re putting words in my mouth. I never even claimed that children should be sent to prison; I was simply steering the conversation back to the actual point at hand. The fact that a prison represents a specific type of punitive structure is an entirely separate debate and has absolutely nothing to do with our current topic. What we were discussing was an analogy regarding punishment. Your attempt to compare adult incarceration to a child being grounded as part of a disciplinary measure is completely absurd. It's like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison to be made here, especially when you look at the psychological implications. The two things are worlds apart.

Let’s get one thing straight: setting boundaries and implementing specific disciplinary methods isn't some coordinated assault on a child's self-esteem, their integrity, or their sense of self. That is a fundamentally flawed way to look at parenting. Instead, we need to view these actions through a much more pragmatic lens—they are simply responses to specific, undesirable situations that arise in real-time. We have to stop conflating guidance with cruelty. Every corrective measure taken should never be intended as psychological or physical punishment. In fact, "punishment" shouldn't even be the goal. If you think the purpose of discipline is to inflict suffering, then you aren't parenting; you're just being punitive. Real discipline is about managing behavior in the moment, not tearing down a child's spirit.

Look, we need to address the fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning. People love to point out shared components—for instance, humans and mice share an incredible amount of biological machinery, yet that doesn't make us the same species. It’s a false equivalence. The same logic applies here. A "bad feeling" can stem from a thousand different circumstances, but trying to pin it down using a single metric is a massive oversimplification. Nothing in this world operates in one dimension. Everything is part of a much more complex web of cause and effect. To suggest otherwise is pure hyperbole. You cannot compare the two things being discussed because the stakes are fundamentally different. In the end, putting someone behind bars will extract a completely different response from a human being than, say, grounding a sixteen-year-old on a Friday night. One is a lesson in accountability and understanding that actions have consequences; the other is a blunt instrument that misses the entire point of psychological impact. You simply cannot treat them as if they are even in the same universe.

feralranger As specified by feralranger: But I didn't input a single thing!

Do you remember that moment when you were insisting I claimed you actually wrote that children belong in jail? Look, your communication style is entirely your own business. You have every right to perceive it however you want and label it exactly how you see fit.

Andrew Doyle said:Look, we need to address the fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning. People love to point out shared components—for instance, humans and mice share an incredible amount of biological machinery, yet that doesn't make us the same species. It’s a false equivalence. The same logic applies here. A "bad feeling" can stem from a thousand different circumstances, but trying to pin it down using a single metric is a massive oversimplification. Nothing in this world operates in one dimension. Everything is part of a much more complex web of cause and effect. To suggest otherwise is pure hyperbole. You cannot compare the two things being discussed because the stakes are fundamentally different. In the end, putting someone behind bars will extract a completely different response from a human being than, say, grounding a sixteen-year-old on a Friday night. One is a lesson in accountability and understanding that actions have consequences; the other is a blunt instrument that misses the entire point of psychological impact. You simply cannot treat them as if they are even in the same universe.

I nowhere claimed they were identical; rather, my point was that they differ quantitatively, though they are linked by the fact that both serve as punishments involving both physical and psychological components. The physical aspect involves the deprivation of freedom of movement, while the psychological component is the resulting sense of distress. I was merely stating facts..

Andrew Doyle said:Look, we need to address the fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning. People love to point out shared components—for instance, humans and mice share an incredible amount of biological machinery, yet that doesn't make us the same species. It’s a false equivalence. The same logic applies here. A "bad feeling" can stem from a thousand different circumstances, but trying to pin it down using a single metric is a massive oversimplification. Nothing in this world operates in one dimension. Everything is part of a much more complex web of cause and effect. To suggest otherwise is pure hyperbole. You cannot compare the two things being discussed because the stakes are fundamentally different. In the end, putting someone behind bars will extract a completely different response from a human being than, say, grounding a sixteen-year-old on a Friday night. One is a lesson in accountability and understanding that actions have consequences; the other is a blunt instrument that misses the entire point of psychological impact. You simply cannot treat them as if they are even in the same universe.

No, you were actually the one who used insinuation to imply it first:

Andrew Doyle said:Point one: kids don't go to prison. We are talking about children here, not adults. Furthermore, you aren't even "grounding" a toddler; that's something that happens once they're older. You cannot simply lump all cognitive, emotional, and developmental stages together and then try to trivialize the situation by claiming a punishment is the same for a two-year-old as it is for a sixteen-year-old. Developmental phases are distinct and come with entirely different needs. Because those needs differ, the perception of any given situation differs accordingly. You can actually sit down and have a rational conversation with a sixteen-year-old about their actions, whereas with a two-year-old, that is physically impossible. Their understanding of cause and effect is fundamentally different.

With a small child, you just have to pull them away from danger immediately without making a whole production out of it. You don't sit down and debate a two or three-year-old about why they shouldn't run into a busy street in Chicago. With a sixteen-year-old, however, you actually have something to discuss, which allows you to implement specific consequences—like the weekend grounding example mentioned here.

It is as if I actually stated that children go to jail, when in reality, I said that nowhere in my posts. I am merely refuting your claim because that is simply not what I expressed.

...and regarding that "quantitative" argument, I’ve already told you why I don't buy it. You can't just crunch numbers when you're dealing with an entire spectrum of distinct emotions; they aren't things you can even begin to analyze from the same perspective.

If there weren't even a quantitative distinction, then the penalties would be identical—but they clearly aren't. While incarceration and house arrest both function as forms of physical and psychological punishment, they are fundamentally distinct precisely because of that quantitative discrepancy.

feralranger said:

Azzura As stated by:
It is, of course, entirely your prerogative to characterize such blatant imputation and projection as a "meaningful contribution."

But I haven't actually imputed anything. That is an objective fact. Your elaborate little logical constructions simply do not constitute proof that I have committed any such "imputation."

"Quote"

Azzura As expressed by: To suggest that locking a child away or punishing them by withholding weekend outings is somehow comparable to actual imprisonment is a stretch, regardless of how many superficial similarities one might attempt to draw between the two. I shall refrain from repeating myself:

I am truly at a loss as to what part of this remains unclear, such that I find myself compelled to reiterate the point once more. Both incarceration and house arrest share an identical physical component—the outright deprivation of one's freedom of movement—as well as a shared psychological dimension: that pervasive, lingering sense of misery that inevitably follows such a restriction.

Azzura As stated by:
Until this very moment, I wasn't even aware that anyone was actually looking for a "third" option in this discussion.

It is quite beside the point. House arrest is essentially a dual-layered punishment, acting as both a physical and psychological sentence. It isn't merely a restriction on one's movement, nor is it strictly a mental burden; since there is no third category to speak of, one is forced to conclude it is a seamless combination of the two.

darkcanyon10 As stated by:
I currently serve as a counselor at one of our local American juvenile detention centers.
It has finally reached that unfortunate breaking point where we are seeing young people actually laying hands on their educators. It is truly a regrettable state of affairs.
It is my firm belief that nonviolence frequently serves as nothing more than the fertile soil in which violence takes root.
When a sixteen-year-old kid decides to charge at me with a clenched fist, I find that my vocabulary—no matter how carefully curated—tends to lose its efficacy quite rapidly.
I have officially enrolled in a self-defense course. 👏

It is simply the logical conclusion. The sheer absurdity of these extremes is becoming quite exhausting, isn't it? We seem to have drifted into a state where nuance has been completely abandoned in favor of these sweeping, polarized caricatures that leave absolutely no room for middle ground. It’s as if we’ve collectively decided that anything less than a total, uncompromising stance is somehow a form of intellectual cowardice. Honestly, watching the discourse unfold lately feels like a relentless exercise in futility—a bit like a modern-day Sisyphus, only instead of a boulder, we're pushing an ever-growing mountain of irrationality up a hill, only to have it roll right back over our heads. One can't help but feel a certain weary detachment when everything is framed as an all-or-nothing battle between two equally unhinged camps. It all boils down to that mindless, blind acceptance of whatever happens to be trending at any given moment—a sort of intellectual surrender where one simply swallows everything whole without the slightest hint of critical thought or scrutiny.

Whatever the cause... the reality is most schools and institutions in America are basically just sets for violent movies.

Parenting is just another controlled form of violence designed to trigger discomfort or pain in a kid to make them stop acting out. Parenting = violence.
Don't ruin kids by overdoing the affection; they need discipline.
Discipline is uncomfortable, and so is having clear boundaries. External structure builds internal structure.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:Alright, moving on... let me write a bit about why it’s vital for a kid to understand that their actions have consequences.

When parents overprotect a kid from everything—especially negative outcomes (like if the kid messes up and the parent rushes in to fix it)—that kid never learns that actions have CONSEQUENCES. When we teach kids that what they do matters, we're actually teaching them how to make their own choices and how to avoid bad outcomes (I’m talking a smack on the butt here, not, you know, assault or something.

In cases where kids are shielded from seeing the fallout of their behavior, they grow up unable to correctly link results to their own actions. Decision-making in adulthood isn't just the simple stuff: like having three candy bars to choose from, where it's easy to pick one (or you're too indecisive to pick any at all).

It goes deeper than that. It's a process where a person realizes that if they combine A and B, they get result C. If a kid never sees the consequences, they'll head from A to B without ever considering the end result. Basically, a person enjoys the process for whatever subjective reasons, but they either don't want the final outcome or can't predict it.

Okay, I'm overcomplicating this... fine, here's a totally unrealistic, hypothetical example.
Someone is hiking through the woods toward a bungee jumping site. They're stoked, singing: "YAY BUNGEE IS COOL, LALALA bungee mungee lala lungee." 🤣🤣 Then an indecisive person comes along, hears them singing, and joins in. Since singing "bungee mungee lala" is fun, they walk through the woods together, having a blast. But then they reach the actual bungee jumping spot—the goal. Person A, who was singing about it, is thrilled because the whole trip was leading to this. Person B (the indecisive one) finally sees what's actually happening—they're expected to jump—and they aren't interested. So they just turn around and leave. Because Person B enjoyed the walk and the singing, but didn't account for the destination, once they hit the goal, they're out. Get what I'm saying?

Or take a guy hitting on a woman with sexual undertones. She plays along because she thinks it's fun, like a game or something. Then the guy expects sex, but the woman doesn't realize that's where this is heading and just wanders off to do something else she finds fun. The guy feels provoked or like there was some ulterior motive, when really, there wasn't.

It's the same thing with reading between the lines. You say something to someone to imply a point, but they don't grasp your direction or your target; they only hear the literal words. It's the same A+B=C formula for everything.

People like that cause total chaos in life. Why? Because the other person—who usually has a clear goal in mind (which is most people, let's be real)—assumes they're on the same page because they're acting like it. Then suddenly, they pivot, and you realize they weren't. It's similar to the chaos caused by people who struggle with emotional attachment but then suddenly want something intensely. They push hard to get something, the other side builds an emotional connection, and then these people just vanish because they don't build those connections. So, who's to blame? We could throw ASPD or BPD diagnoses at everyone at this point 😬

Look, I get that most people won't see how this all connects, but it does. This is how I reached the conclusion that physical discipline should be used as a consequence for bad behavior. Kids won't always understand exactly where they're headed in the moment. But if a parent gives you *that* look—you know what that means, you're screwed—you move. Simple.

Seriously, tell me—when you mess up or do something totally stupid, when your partner or whoever just gives you a good old-fashioned smack to teach you a lesson, does that actually work for you?

Or look at criminal sentencing. What kind of prison system are we talking about? If we just had public lashings, man, people would learn pretty fast not to steal... damn....

I mean, I don't get why people were such idiots and banned corporal punishment in the first place if it’s clearly—you know—so effective!

Someone else made a great point earlier—once you have kids of your own, you'll see if you can really bring yourself to hit them. To cause that much pain. To basically crush a child's spirit like that.

George Davis6 said:Seriously, tell me—when you mess up or do something totally stupid, when your partner or whoever just gives you a good old-fashioned smack to teach you a lesson, does that actually work for you?

Or look at criminal sentencing. What kind of prison system are we talking about? If we just had public lashings, man, people would learn pretty fast not to steal... damn....

I mean, I don't get why people were such idiots and banned corporal punishment in the first place if it’s clearly—you know—so effective!

Someone else made a great point earlier—once you have kids of your own, you'll see if you can really bring yourself to hit them. To cause that much pain. To basically crush a child's spirit like that.

And there it is. That’s the whole damn issue right there. "Will it be easy to hit them?" Of course it isn't easy. Raising a kid isn't easy; if it were, everyone would be doing it perfectly. The point isn't whether it feels hard for you or easy. It's about what needs to be done. You aren't looking at what's necessary to get a kid on the right track; you're just focused on "is this hard for me" or "can I handle this." I don't know about you, but that's where I see the problem.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:And there it is. That’s the whole damn issue right there. "Will it be easy to hit them?" Of course it isn't easy. Raising a kid isn't easy; if it were, everyone would be doing it perfectly. The point isn't whether it feels hard for you or easy. It's about what needs to be done. You aren't looking at what's necessary to get a kid on the right track; you're just focused on "is this hard for me" or "can I handle this." I don't know about you, but that's where I see the problem.

You're dodging my previous questions.

I don't see why I WOULD need to hit my kid if they’re actually listening to me. 🤔🤔

Look, through consistent effort, I've reached a point where I might have to repeat myself a few times—maybe raise my voice just a little bit—but that's really it. My kid knows exactly where the boundaries are and understands what's allowed and what isn't. No yelling, no hitting, no trauma. And honestly? It's totally doable, you know? 😉

George Davis6 said:You're dodging my previous questions.

I don't see why I WOULD need to hit my kid if they’re actually listening to me. 🤔🤔

Look, through consistent effort, I've reached a point where I might have to repeat myself a few times—maybe raise my voice just a little bit—but that's really it. My kid knows exactly where the boundaries are and understands what's allowed and what isn't. No yelling, no hitting, no trauma. And honestly? It's totally doable, you know? 😉

It's because you have zero logic and you ignore half of what I say. You're just passive-aggressive and biased, unable to explain where your views even come from—you just parrot whatever you were taught like a sheep. You don't get that I'm looking at the big picture and doing what's best for the kid's future, yet you accuse me of being abusive.

And last but not least, it's because you're raising your kid based on "whatever's easiest for me."

I don't see why I HAVE to hit my child if they listen to me. 🤔🤔

Basically, through consistent effort, I've reached a point where I might have to repeat myself a few times or raise my voice slightly, but that's it. My kid knows exactly where the lines are drawn. No screaming, no hitting, no trauma. It's actually possible, you know? 😉

Right. So your kid will grow up "perfect," and God help them having a mother like you.

I’m just going to ignore this because you're talking total nonsense—it honestly makes zero sense. I really don't have the energy to explain things to you. To me, you're someone who actually advocates for using physical force against people who can't fight back or defend themselves, and frankly, that makes you a complete non-entity in my book.

Like I already said—and maybe you should go ahead and double-check the actual laws if you don't believe me?—corporal punishment of children is strictly illegal here in the United States, so this whole debate is pretty much pointless.

George Cook said:All physical punishment achieves is teaching a child to fear their own parent. A beaten child learns humiliation, not lessons; there is no practical value in trying to "teach" through force.

Exactly.
Just about twenty days ago, I had a student run to the corner of the classroom, screaming and sobbing, because they were terrified to go home—scared that Mom would beat them again just because they once again received a failing grade.