This is a good example of a good idea gone bad. Absolutist positions
are almost always wrong. That is why a good scientist should never say
"never" or "always". (Except in a case such as the previous sentence.)
Punishment (in this case, spanking), properly employed, is a quick and
effective method of stopping behavior. If the child is engaging in
dangerous (potential injury- or death-causing) behavior, I think it can
be argued that punishment might be appropriately applied to stop the
behavior. The purpose of the use of punishment is not to inflict pain
on the child for having done something wrong, for having disobeyed, or
for having embarrassed the parent, but rather, to stop the dangerous
behavior immediately (before the child is injured or killed) and allow
the opportunity to teach the proper behavior. I am thinking, for
example, of a case such as the child running across the street.
The consequences of being struck by a car so far outweigh the problems
and negative side-effects of punishment that I suggest that hitting the
child might be a reasonable way of dealing with the child's behavior.
Of course, it is always (oops) better to prevent the dangerous behavior
than to have to stop it. My personal preference is to use a chain that
is short enough to stop the child at least three feet short of the
curb. ;-)
A rarely-church-going semi-agnostic who believes it is rarely OK to hit
a child.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nancy Melucci
> A non-church going agnostic who believes it is never OK to hit a child.
--
----------==========>>>>>>>>>> ��� <<<<<<<<<<==========----------
John W. Nichols, M.A.
Assistant Professor of Psychology & Computer Science
Tulsa Community College
909 S. Boston Ave., Tulsa, OK 74119
(918) 595-7134
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home: http://www.tulsa.oklahoma.net/~jnichols/home.html
MegaPsych: http://www.tulsa.oklahoma.net/~jnichols/megapsych.html
