Many years ago the subject of corporal punishment came up in a discussion I was having somewhere and one "expert" said that it was OK to spank your child but you should use your bare open palm and never use a paddle or a belt or anything else. Another "expert" said you should never use your hand but always use something like a paddle.

This is an impossible thing to discuss because the anti-spanking crowd thinks that any discipline of a child that involves hitting is pure child abuse and nothing else. A mother swats her kid once on the behind for misbehaving in a store and right away these people say "she beat her kid. If you support this then you support beating kids" Its all or nothing with so many of them. At least those who post opinions on the matter. Most sane people do not support beating kids or child abuse. However, not all sane people equate a spanking with beating kids or child abuse. It is a case of trying to impose your morality onto someone else.

Most of the spanking crowd realizes that there is a difference between discipline and beating. Personally I do not think a swat or two on the behind is inappropriate for certain repetitive bad behavior. I also think what AP did crossed the line, in fact I think it went way over the line. Not because he used a switch but because of the number of hits he made. IMO it was excessive. I think many of the "spanking is OK" crowd would consider this excessive as well. I would not call it child abuse however. I do not think this makes AP a bad father but I do think that if a 4 year old kid is afraid his father will punch him that is not a healthy relationship.

In a perfect world we would not have to spank our children. Then again in a perfect world our children wouldn't do anything that would require such discipline. I do think that most, in fact perhaps the vast majority of children, can be properly disciplined without spanking. I also think that spanking should never be the first form of discipline. I also think that discipline is much to lax nowadays. There is the conundrum. How do you properly discipline a problem child without resorting to violence. Not every passive form of punishment works on every kid. Timeouts work wonders with some kids others do not respond as well. Ideally children, all people actually, should exhibit good behavior because bad behavior is wrong not because they fear the punishment of the bad behavior. The trick is how do we get them to realize the behavior is wrong.

The NFL is on the hot seat with this one. I think AP will get the full brunt of the new policy (6 games at least) simply because of the timing of it. There is simply no way they can justify anything less in light of the way Goodell handled the Ray Rice case. Even if a lot of people think AP was just disciplining his own child.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Wade it is not just the legal system that has different standards for famous or wealthy and the average guy.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

IMO, highly visible members of society are looked upon to show the rest of society what is and is not acceptable behavior. Yes, we have laws, but peer pressure often trumps those official regulations. If this "respected" celebrity is punished for abusing a child, then Children can be disciplined in better ways. Breaking the cycle of my daddy beat me and his daddy beat him and ... is just the right thing to do. It is always harder to unlearn a behavior than it is learn one, but that may just be what will be needed. Hitting a child, a woman, or another man is unacceptable behavior for both men and women.

Commissioner Goodell will be taking on the task of establishing formal rules of behavior for the NFL. In doing so , they will be setting down social norms that will be looked up to by the rest of our society. I don't envy the task.

Originally Posted by: Smokey