Comment: I think people are overly focused on "saving the kid scenarios"

(See in situ)


I think people are overly focused on "saving the kid scenarios"

I am not criticizing you or anyone else that makes this argument.

But we must be realistic about HOW OFTEN these scenarios are occurring; in order to keep things in the correct context when trying to choose the correct philosophy.

In my opinion, you are not CONSTANTLY KEEPING YOUR KID FROM RUNNING INTO THE STREET OR TOUCHING A STOVE BURNER. And even when you are protecting your kid from such scenarios, DO YOU HIT THEM???? Or do you grab their hand and caution them? Or grab their body and caution them and explain the danger?

Why the automatic assumption that a kid that "if you see your kid running towards traffic or a stove burner, HIT THE KID!!!"???

---

LETS KEEP IT REAL: Most parents that do alot of spanking MAKE IT A HABIT of hitting their kids when:

1. The kid is being loud or annoying.
2. The parent is frustrated with the child or the situation.
3. The parent has told the child about this behavior repeatedly.
4. The kid won't give the parent "some peace."
5. The kid won't leave the parent or other family member alone.
6. The kid embarrasses the parent.

And the parent usually has some choice words to say to the kid in the process, yelling at the little boy or girl like they are "the naughty house pet" like when the stupid dog or cat won't leave your food alone or something.

So we should not give this "saving the kid from traffic" scenario MORE CREDIT than it deserves; it is a cop out.