Which is more harmful to a child? A rare swat to the rear, or TV?

Which is more harmful to children?

A rare swat to the rear, or letting the TV be their babysitter several hours every day?

I think leaving kids in front of the TV all the time is unconscionable, but millions do it.

There are all kinds of things parents do to their kids that don't involve physical contact, but are really wrong, just the same. Running a child down verbally on a regular basis, telling then how worthless they are, is SO much worse than spanking, SO much more hurtful, IMO.

I think you may have some fire damage from the Incensed and Justified Anti-Spanker Brigade.

I, too, oppose hitting children, but the flame wars are just nuts. We'd be far better off discussing how to improve the lives of children instead of fighting over fanny rights.

--p!

means getting parents to stop inducing physical pain to their children. The stuff I went through as a child was excessive and has caused a lot of problems into adulthood that I have only recently overcome with lots of therapy and time. Why put your kids through it?

But I think that many people blow it way out of proportion.

And I certainly think someone should be a parent actively involved in raising a child to pontificate on the subject.

and can do harm to a child.

to some people, "rare" may mean "weekly", others, "yearly".

regardless, several hours of tv ignores which programs they are watching, and also ignores whether or not it is followed with proper discussion.

Regular spankings are clearly counterproductive.

I can count the number of times I was spanked as a child on one hand. That's what I'm talking about.

And I was specifically talking about using TV as a babysitter. Sure, Sesame Street is better than Ninja Turtles, but hours of unsupervised viewing is a bad thing on a regular basis, no matter what.

Giving a child illegal drugs, or chaining them to a pole in the basement 1 hour a day?

If I pick an answer, it's implied consent for the other option.

And like my question, it's largely a rhetorical one.

Fortunately few parents treat their children as you describe.

There was a thread not long ago that said that any parent who EVER so much as laid a finger on their child was a MONSTER and should have their children taken away and be jailed.

Just trying to put it into perspective.

I believe River Phoenix was never spanked as a child, was raised vegetarian and pacifist, and he was dead at 24 of a heroin overdose.

There are many important facets to childrearing besides whether or not one employs corporal punishment. MANY of us survived a few spankings as a child and don't feel any worse off for it. Many were abused and are adamantly opposed to corporal punishment.

Then there are the freepers, who as kids were probably given major-league mind-fucks on a daily basis, and probably beat their own kids because the bible says it's okay.

Isn't that what Rush Limbaugh tried to do with the "frat pranks" at Abu Ghraib?

It's eerily similar to Gonzales's justification of torture - so long as it doesn't involve permanent organ disfunction and it's done for a purpose other than the violence itself, it's all good.

Some people think a swat that leaves no marks is fine. Some people think being made to stand in an uncomfortable position while handcuffed for a couple hours is fine. Some think being made to wear underwear on your head for photos, or being made to strip for humiliating photos is fine. It's all good.

I'm just leery of anyone who tries to justify something by saying it's not so bad as other things they could be doing, I guess.

straight.

Spanking/Not spanking your kids doesn't determine whether or not you are a good parent. There are a lot more things that go into parenting.

How about hug your child and read her a book?