Why? Spanking children should not be illegal. You say "beating" because that is dramatic and sounds awful. there is a difference between reasonable corporal punishment and "beating". Heck, in this day and age of hyper-bullying "awareness", it won't be long before the liberals are telling us we aren't allowed to tell out children they are wrong ever, for fear of scarring their delicate little skulls full of mush...

The book doesn't say spank, it says and I quote "switching them until they are broken". It says to ignore their apologies and attempt to defend themself and beat them until they stop moving.

When my three year old disobeys and walks into the street in front of a car, the rational explanation that you will get run over and die - which they are incapable of understanding - doesn't work well enough. the sting of a spanking, though, is enough of an input that the kid probably won't endanger his life again in that manner...I did not use spanking often, but it was effective primarily when younger, when logic does not exist in their little brains, and then especially for disobedience where they could endanger themselves, or in displays of continued, willful acts of disobedience, where *not* stopping the behavior would have taught them that their disobedience/acting-out was something they could get away with and it empowers them. Corporal punishment has a clear, good purpose when used correctly.

I'm NOT defending that book, by the way - it's clearly trash. I can find you mountains of self-help trash out there

krellin, leaving aside free speech (on which I think we agree) and corporal punishment (on which I think we agree), do you agree that the quotes posted above are completely appalling? Just curious.

Heh, you answered my question right as I posted it.

For once I agree with you Krellin, but it does seem that you're defending the book, which is truly awful

@semck - Of course those quotes are appaling. And as I have pointed out, every rational human being that reads them thinks they are appaling. the parents following that are not rational. Banning the book, I suggest, would not have prevented them from doing irrational, terrible things to their kids. They sought something that validated their pre-existing beliefs. they didn't read that book and *suddenly* decide beating theri kids was OK. If you believe that,YOU are irrational.

Good, krellin.

I would disagree with you only on using "irrational." It's not just a reasoning error to decide to treat your kids that way -- it's warped, and evil.

But yes, anybody who decides to follow the advice certainly already had problems. That doesn't mean the book didn't provide the legitimization that pushed them over the edge to actually doing it, though. (And yes, I'm sure that anybody who actually KILLS their kids "following the book" had far, far bigger issues than even the authors).

SYnapse..I'm NOT Defending the book. Good lord, how many times must I say it. I’m defending the freedom of assholes to publish assholish things. I can find you an entire buttload of assholish things on Amazon in about 2 seconds flat if you want me to. Free speech means people get to be assholes on occasion, and we expect law-abiding rational people to call them assholes and move on. Communism has killed millions of people…but we till support the right of communists to espouse their demented authoritarian ideology, and people reject it, given a choice. What the parents did was illegal, regardless of the book. I’m not quite sure why that is so difficult to grasp. It isn’t the book’s fault…it is THE PARENTS FAULT. Good lord, stop blaming the system, the book, the <fill in the blank> for people's actions.

So are you saying the parents should have been found innocent, because they are victims of the book?

The parents and the author are both at fault for different things. The author is not at fault for the parents' behaviour but for his own

You seem to think that writing is a behaviour outside of any law (i mean moral law as well as the actual law) Writing something bad is bad, regardless. You're taking personal responsibility of the reader, and saying that that excuses writing anything, which I don't agree with.

"You're taking personal responsibility of the reader"

Wait what? No. Neither in the eyes of the law or common sense is this true. I am not responsible for people do after they read something I wrote (barring Semck's noteable exceptions).

If I go off on a long blog rant about how I hate the F'ing TSA and I wish somebody would shoot them all to hell, that does not make me responsible when an idiot reads it and says, "seems legit, I think I'll go do that!"

SYnapse - I could care less about "moral law". I would prefer that you keep your moral law to yourself, and visa versa. If I find you immoral (but behaving legally) you will nto be coming to my WebDip Christmas party...but I don't think you need to be flogged in the public square and jailed. I also won't buy your book...but that's about the extent of it.

Hate to tell you this, pal, but most people...MOST people...are immoral, and hypocrites.

Krellin - I've heard this argument that we should spank our children to avoid them getting run over by a car; or their fingers burnt in the fire; or to stop them jumping out of windows etc, etc etc. Do you ever see thousands of children with bandaged hands or impaled on fences? No? Did you think that the non-spanking advocates have developed other means of preventing death and injury?

What is really strange about UK law is that parents can (and do) prosecute their children if they hit the parent, but a child can not prosecute a parent for the exact same act. Is that right?

Maniac - what does the failure to see thousands of kids with "x" injury have to do with anything? Yes or no - you can rationalize with a 3 year old about something for which they have no intellectual capacity to understand?

Ever watch the animal kingdom? You know how animals discipline their young? Momma cat bops baby kitten on the and hisses at it when it gets out of line...

There is nothing wrong with Inflicting temporary, non-damaging pain in a controlled environment; not out of anger, and not to excess.

I wonder, maniac, do you believe in physical rewards for a child? Do you believe in engaging their pleasure center with a piece of candy, or a new toy when they do well?

Perhaps there is a reason the body has "negative" stimuli, if I can put it that way, that are wired in to our brain and consciousness.

Prove to me that all spanking is permanently harmful to a child...

As for non-spanking parents....anecdotally, I see a society in which children are spanked less often, and increasingly disrespectful to adults, and more out of control.

Is there a tie in? I don't know...just an observation...

Can you do other things to discipline a child? Certainly. I actually dont' think all parents should spank, because some don't have the self-control necessary to do it properly.

I also think that spanking is a faster, more permanent method of teaching, and reduces the risk of repeated negative behavior, which is critical in cases where the negative behavior causes harm.

We taught our child over and over and over and over again that ovens are hot and dangerous - meaningless words to a 2 year old. She didn't learn what we meant until she grabbed a cookie sheet in hot oven and burned her hand. I wish we would have spanked her for getting near the oven in stead of teaching here "Oven...hot..owie..."

Krellin

My point was that I have raised three kids without having to smack them and they haven't ended up under car wheels, with burnt fingers or jumped out of any windows. The reason being is that I have taken responsibility to protect them prior to the hazzard occurring.. My children were restrained from crossing the road until they could be taught to do it safely. My children were kept away from the kitchen when the oven was on. This meant thinking ahead sometimes and wasn't always easy. My middle son in particular could try the patience of a saint, but I think just beating him into submission would have been the easy way out.

I used to see and hear so many parents shouting and screaming at their kids "I'll teach you to hit your sister!" Whack. That's exactly what they are doing, teaching their children that if you hit someone they will do what you want them to do. Bully a kid and they will bully others.

"I see a society in which children are spanked less often, and increasingly disrespectful to adults, and more out of control."

-krellin, 2013 AD

"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers."

-Socrates, ~415 BC

Surely there's a better way to raise children than to beat them with a pipe.

Krellin I greatly admire your new style of argument which I call "batshit ambiguous"

Essentially it boils down to saying "I concede to reasonable point no. 1, I am not saying extreme point 2, I am just saying reasonable point with unreasonable undertones no. 3"

As for banning this book, I don't have a firm opinion either way. The content appears to be horrific, but on the other hand I'm pretty reluctant to ban any book regardless of how bad it is.

"Am I out of touch? No, it is the children who are wrong." - Principal Skinner

@Maniac - good for you. and I have raised two children that are polite to adults, are honor role students, they participate in athletics and other school activities, do community service, show no predisposition to drugs or other negative behavior (not saying they never will) and they were spanked. Oh...and they're quite attractive, too, which scares the h*** out of me.

Now clearly I am biased regarding my daughters. It is the consistent compliments from teachers, friends and strangers and convinces me I am correct in my assessment.

They do suck at doing housework and keeping their rooms clean, though...lol

So my point: Corporal punihment, correctly applied, does not harm. You choose to not do it, and instead used some sort of *mental* punishment, and want to pretend that that was somehow superior.

I would suggest to you that there are plenty of parents who do not spank, but instead shame and degrade their children to correct their behavior, which can be more damaging than a swat on the behind.

And for the record, not once have I ever "smacked" my children in anger with public, vocal threats. Those people should not be spanking. But....like I said, these are the same idiots that will (in the absence of spanking) degrade and humiliate their children and cause all sort of other harm to them.

SYnapse - as to yoru apparent lack of reading comprehension...I will no tango with you any longer - you may dance alone. If you want to play stupid somatic games and purposely misconstrue what I am saying, I will take that as either an admission of your defeat, or an admission of your corrupted mind, or simple intellectual dishonesty.

The music is playing...you are now alone on the stage...I'm drinking a tonic water at the bar with maniac, who plays nice (and, I might ad, looks dashing today...)

@ Krellin: "Who is responsible? The parents who murdered their child, or the book?"

Both. The parents who murdered their child are responsible, but the authors of the book *also* bear some responsibility for writing a book which encourages parents to beat their children with pipes and sticks, deny them food, hose them down with cold water and lock them outside in cold weather. Both are responsible.

Really Jamie -- so a million other people read the book and call it out as the vile nonsense that it is...but these slobbering fools get to use it as a partial excuse?

Sorry, Jamie, I call b.s. on that. These parents were pre-disposed to violence towards there children, regardless of what they read in this book. All you fools...yup, I said it...that think that these parents were perfectly polite, non-violent loving adults who one day read a book and *bling* suddenly decided that beating a child was right, even though they never considered it before, are totally being taken for a ride. These people were violent to begin, period.

*I'm sorry for essentially calling you a fool, Jamie. That was uncalled for. Though I do believe it is foolish to think that these parents were not violent before reading the book, it is not necessary for me to use the term as I did, and I'm sorry*

Just +1'd krellin... been awhile.