Gyroscopic Investing

To follow up on the discussion about children being hit...

Do spankings count?

Experiences leave much deeper impressions on children than many adults realize (which is weird, because they were all children once).

Any experience that a child has of extreme fear may stay with him for the rest of his life.  Ironically, the same thing is true of dogs, and you can usually tell whether an adult dog was mistreated as a puppy if you spend a little time around him/her.

I still remember perfectly every experience of extreme fear that I had as a child, including being hit, being lost, and being in danger.

To contrast adult life with my childhood experiences, I can pretty easily shake off much more traumatic experiences.  There are a handful of really unpleasant experiences I have had as an adult, but when I think about them it doesn't trigger that momentary sense of fear, anxiety and anger that I feel when I think about childhood experiences.

dualstow wrote: Do spankings count?

Wiki = Spanking is the act of striking the buttocks of another person to cause temporary pain without producing physical injury.

If spanking is different than hitting is it only the intent to cause physical injury?

What does the redness produced stem from or the pain receptors firing?

It's hitting. That word just points out what it really is so people would rather not use it. Had to justify "Hitting" your kids. 

For the sake of discussion--and again, I don't condone hitting children--it seems to me that there are two ways to hit a child, and only one produces lifelong trauma. Whenever I hear from people who were traumatized by corporal punishment, it's always in the context of being terrified of a parent, usually the father. The father wasn't hitting his kids just as a punishment, but to express his anger and violent tendencies. And usually there would be a belt, a hardcover book or some improvised weapon involved. This all really seems to mess up kids.

By contrast, people I know who were spanked as a child in a manner that made it clear that it was a punishment and that the parent did not enjoy doing it usually don't seem to feel like they were traumatized.

And again, I have no plans to hit my child.

I was spanked, but never hit.  I spank my kids but never hit.  I don't really remember being scared of being spanked as a kid, but always felt like I had let my parents down when it occurred.

Kshartle wrote:

dualstow wrote: Do spankings count?

...
...
...

I'm not getting into a debate in this thread. I'm asking the pollster, Libertarian666, if he wants us to count traditional spankings.

Pointedstick wrote: By contrast, people I know who were spanked as a child in a manner that made it clear that it was a punishment and that the parent did not enjoy doing it usually don't seem to feel like they were traumatized.

You can't know and they can't know how things would be different if they weren't hit. That's why this "evidence" is not proof of anything. When a child is being hit by it's parent it's being hurt. It 's being hurt by the person who is supposed to love them more than anything else. The lesson is that hitting is an acceptable solution as long as you are bigger and stronger. The lesson is that if you do what's against the rules you will be hurt. The rules are enforced upon the child not accepted and the punishment is against their will.

This is where the state comes from. It comes from hitting children. They learn their place in the world and it destroys empathy.

dualstow wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

dualstow wrote: Do spankings count?

...
...
...

I'm not getting into a debate in this thread. I'm asking the pollster, Libertarian666, if he wants us to count traditional spankings.

Ohhh, np.

I think it's important to draw the distinction because you'll find many many kids are hit in the type of way most of us call spanking.

Kshartle wrote: You can't know and they can't know how things would be different if they weren't hit. That's why this "evidence" is not proof of anything. When a child is being hit by it's parent it's being hurt. It 's being hurt by the person who is supposed to love them more than anything else. The lesson is that hitting is an acceptable solution as long as you are bigger and stronger. The lesson is that if you do what's against the rules you will be hurt. The rules are enforced upon the child not accepted and the punishment is against their will.

No doubt. But as usual, you're ignoring the nuance in favor of making a broad, sweeping generalization. My point--which is perhaps separate from the political statement you're trying to make regarding the foundation of the state--is that being hit in different ways produces different reactions in a child. Being hit in a violent, abusive context by an enraged possibly drunk parent produces different (much worse and more damaging) emotions than being briefly hit dispassionately or sadly by a remorseful parent purely as a punishment.

And again, I don't do it and don't plan to. But I want to recognize the nuance in the situation.

dualstow wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

dualstow wrote: Do spankings count?

...
...
...

I'm not getting into a debate in this thread. I'm asking the pollster, Libertarian666, if he wants us to count traditional spankings.

Yes.

MangoMan wrote: I voted frequently, but that was with the assumption that hitting=spanking/corporal punishment. If we are referring to abuse of some kind then I change my answer to never.

FWIW, in spite of my father's preference for corporal punishment, I only spanked each of my children once during their upbringing. My daughter for doing something very dangerous when she was about 4, and my son for peeing into the floor air duct vent in his sister's room when he was about 6. And I felt horrible afterward both times. But, boy, did they deserve it 

Bahahaha.  Pissing into a floor duct in your sister's room. That's hilarious.

moda0306 wrote: Bahahaha.  Pissing into a floor duct in your sister's room. That's hilarious.

I really enjoyed that story too!  I'm sure it wasn't quite as fun having to deal with it as a parent, though.

I got a good spanking once when I flooded the elementary school bathroom with my friend. I don't do that any more (mainly due to lack of access to school bathrooms that need a good flooding)...

Another time I did something to my younger brother, I don't recall what. But my mom asked me if I had done it "on accident" or "on purpose."

Well I was young and had forgotten what each meant. And I asked her what the difference was. She said:

"On accident means it wasn't on purpose!"

"On purpose means it wasn't an accident!"

Drat! Foiled by my mom's circular definition! So I dwelled on it for about five seconds and took a guess and blurted out:

"On purpose!"

I got spanked for that as well. But the good news is I never forgot the difference between those two statements.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: You can't know and they can't know how things would be different if they weren't hit. That's why this "evidence" is not proof of anything. When a child is being hit by it's parent it's being hurt. It 's being hurt by the person who is supposed to love them more than anything else. The lesson is that hitting is an acceptable solution as long as you are bigger and stronger. The lesson is that if you do what's against the rules you will be hurt. The rules are enforced upon the child not accepted and the punishment is against their will.

No doubt. But as usual, you're ignoring the nuance in favor of making a broad, sweeping generalization. My point--which is perhaps separate from the political statement you're trying to make regarding the foundation of the state--is that being hit in different ways produces different reactions in a child. Being hit in a violent, abusive context by an enraged possibly drunk parent produces different (much worse and more damaging) emotions than being briefly hit dispassionately or sadly by a remorseful parent purely as a punishment.

And again, I don't do it and don't plan to. But I want to recognize the nuance in the situation.

Yes there are different types of abuse.

Do you think there is more long-term damage from a kid getting beat up by a drunk parent, or lovingly hit by a remorseful parent as a punishment?

I think it's easy to underestimate the damage done by the latter because so many of us have done it, do it, our friends do it, family does it etc. etc.

Lot's of people get into abusive relationships. What kind of damage does this do to everyone? How many of these relationships come about because the person was spanked and can't distinguish love from abuse so on and so forth.

I don't have hard data in front of me on what spanking does to a person long-term but if I can't spank another adult (non-consenting), why on Earth could I ever spank a child who is not free to leave the relationship? It's one person in a position of total power over another helpless person. How can it not be damaging?

Xan wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Bahahaha.  Pissing into a floor duct in your sister's room. That's hilarious.

I really enjoyed that story too!  I'm sure it wasn't quite as fun having to deal with it as a parent, though.

I'm sure I would be absolutely furious... until about a week later.

The one time my mother really spanked me was because I had lied to her about where I got a dime.  I said I found it but in reality my grandmother had given it to me.  Yes, I know a dime doesn't sound like much now but it bought two packs of baseball cards back in 1962.  Anyway, the thing I remember most was that while my mom spanked me, she was crying.  It hurt her to spank me.  Seeing the fact that I had made my mom cry hurt me more than the spanking she was giving me. 

I think that a lot of people who grow up in the ghetto without a consistent father figure, with abuse that can come from any number of sources, and the fear that a high crime area generates probably move into adolescence and adulthood with different shades of PTSD, which probably makes it harder to avoid criminal activity as an alternative to the structured and disciplined path that getting out of the ghetto would require them to travel.

I think that child abuse in general is probably more common among poor people.  I don't have any proof of that, it's just an intuition.  I may be wrong.

I AM glad that the governmental agents in the form of teachers, vice principals and principals have stopped arbitrarily beating children with wooden planks for misbehaving at school.  I've never seen much good come from beating anyone with a stick. 

Even animals seem to suffer long lasting psychological damage from being beaten with instruments such as different types of sticks.  I once had the most amazingly perceptive, intelligent and empathetic dog, but if he saw a broom he reverted to a completely stupid animal as he was seized by fear.  He couldn't do anything except try to get away from the broom.  The broom caused all of his charm to disappear completely.  I was always careful to sweep when he wasn't in the room.

IMO, every child has a particular motivator or deterrent. Spanking definitely kept me in-line when necessary and I have no real issue with it. My parents would only resort to that once they had tried every other means to effectively discipline me, and never hit me in any other way. Once I was old enough to have things I cared about taken away, sparking was no longer necessary.

My brother was a tough kid and didn't care about spankings. He was a hellion up until my parents finally discovered his kryptonite - football.  The combination of motivation to play and strict discipline by the coaches totally changed him.

I don't condone abuse. But I also don't believe spanking (when sparingly used and thoroughly communicated) is abuse. As I said, every kid is different and there's no one perfect way to raise one.

craigr wrote: I got a good spanking once when I flooded the elementary school bathroom with my friend.

For some reason, I still think it's funny when someone decides to do this to a public bathroom. 

I have no idea why.

I am not a fan of beating kids. But on the other hand a sharp smack (never closed fisted) or an occasional spanking when something serious warrants more than a "time out" can be appropriate. My maternal grandfather had a reputation for being very "old school' and there were some chilling stories in the family about his taste for discipline (most of which I now think were grossly exaggerated if not outright BS). But when we were kids my sisters and I took those stories as gospel. And I think my grandfather rather enjoyed living on that reputation. He used to have an old fashioned razor strop hanging on the wall in the family room (an odd decoration) and whenever any of us got out of control he would just clear his throat very loudly and nod towards the leather strop.

A silence that would be the envy of a Carthusian monastery instantly follow.

Tyler wrote: IMO, every child has a particular motivator or deterrent. Spanking definitely kept me in-line when necessary and I have no real issue with it. My parents would only resort to that once they had tried every other means to effectively discipline me, and never hit me in any other way. Once I was old enough to have things I cared about taken away, sparking was no longer necessary.

My brother was a tough kid and didn't care about spankings. He was a hellion up until my parents finally discovered his kryptonite - football.  The combination of motivation to play and strict discipline by the coaches totally changed him.

I don't condone abuse. But I also don't believe spanking (when sparingly used and thoroughly communicated) is abuse. As I said, every kid is different and there's no one perfect way to raise one.

I think that some children are more emotionally sensitive and more easily subject to psychological damage.

Take my youngest son, for example.  I think that he could probably take a lot of abuse and just look back at you like "Is that all you got?"  My older son, however, is far more sensitive, and the same treatment would probably be more likely to cause lasting damage.

If you spank all kids, some will turn out fine (and might even attribute turning out fine to being spanked), while spanking may do a lot of damage to other kids who can't cope with that type of attack/assault from people who are supposed to love them.

Again, it's not unlike PTSD.  One soldier can see the horrors of war (including those he inflicted) and totally shake it off, while another soldier may have a nervous breakdown from seeing even a little bit of blood and body parts.

On the topic of war and PTSD, I've always thought that it would be impossible for a psychologically healthy person to kill someone without it messing them up a little bit.  When I see that film footage from U.S. attack helicopters where they turn a group of "insurgents" or whatever into a pile of messy body parts, I just assume that about half of those helicopter crews are going to spend most of the rest of their lives under government psychiatric care as they try to sort through the experience of going out every day with the purpose of turning these groups of humans into messy piles of lead and depleted uranium-laced flesh.

I got spanked a lot growing up, mostly by my mother but my dad would also take off his belt sometimes.

This was fairly common back then and nobody thought of it as abuse, just a normal part of growing up.

We did worse things to each other playing football.

My dad and two siblings grew up in a house with "strict discipline" that in retrospect looks to me like a horrific scene of white trash child abuse.

I was always very impressed that my dad had been able to put that behind him for the most part.  His two siblings weren't so lucky, and both have lived lives with a lot of problems that probably stem from growing up in constant terror of being beaten.

My dad's younger brother wrecked the family truck when he was 16 years old and was literally so scared he never came home.  He was on his own from that day forward.  His sister got married when she was 16 and that was her ticket out of her father's abusive home (though SURPRISE, her new husband was also abusive).  My dad went into the Air Force at 17 and never looked back.

I think that the key to effectively discipling children is to create an atmosphere and structure that encourages good behavior. 

It's not unlike the environment that the police seek to provide so that they don't have to be constantly beating and shooting citizens for minor infractions.

I am constantly trying to make minor adjustments in dealing with my two sons (including making my expectations as clear as possible), but I can't imagine spanking beyond about age 6.  From there, it should be all about persuasion with almost no coercion.

IMHO, the absolute worst place to get with kids is in "battle mode" where there is a struggle for power and control in everything they do.  Parents usually lose these battles because they don't have as much fighting energy as their kids do and aren't willing to engage in the serious type of child abuse that it would take to settle the "battle" decisively.

Harry Browne said in his audio course that the test of whether you are a good parent is whether you think that you are someone your kids would want to be friends with when they grow up.  My dad's dad clearly failed this test of quality parenting.  On the few occasions I had to spend around this fellow before he died, I always had that emotion you might have being around one of those elderly former Nazi concentration camp guards.