Hit the children, or in the ass, or in the diaper, or because it is an "educational" cheek, what they call "cheek on time", it's a crime. But it doesn't matter, because many parents keep doing it. Hitting children is an educational error that has few benefits and many possible damages. But it doesn't matter, because many parents keep doing it.
Scientists tell us not to do it, because abuse transforms the brain. The pedagogy tells us not to do it because it can have negative consequences on the personality of children and adults, studies that hitting makes children more aggressive. Does not matter, the parents keep doing it.
Therefore, for some time now, my argument against the cheek in time, the educational cheek, the whipping, as you want to call it, has been greatly simplified. I no longer need to cite studies, I no longer need to talk about consequences, I no longer have to name pediatricians, philosophers, pedagogues, authors or scientists. With a single phrase I say everything, and to explain it I will help myself from the video you have above in which it looks clear: Even dogs don't think it's good to hit children.
Dogs that don't look good hitting children
The video is a pass. A mother gets angry at her son and decides to teach him what is right and what is wrong punishing him with a shoe, a more traditional method that indicates that there are people who have not evolved anything, because they have no more resources, or more ideas than their parents had. Because hey, times are changing, our generation has more studies, we are better able to solve things by talking or thinking about solutions, and we have the advantage of having lived through negative experiences pursued by our parents. Well, it seems that none of that works when you have a child and, instead of showing that we are adults and that we have enough capacity to find other educational paths, it turns out that we end the wild method of hurting the helpless child.
Well, that, that the woman lifts the shoe determined to harm the child and the child, logically scared and most likely confused, because it is assumed that "no harm is done to the people you want," is sheltered in a corner, with the protecting hands, hoping nothing happens to him.
And the dogs, incredible. Dogs show more common sense than the mother and they recriminate him that he intends to harm the child. They do not leave her, and she does not dare to take the step because in a way she is afraid that they will do with her the same thing she is trying to do with her son: hurt. He slows himself down, in many moments they stop him: "if I hit him, they will bite me ... if I punish him, they will punish me." But they are not there to do justice. They are there because they don't like what they see. Because they understand that it is not a correct attitude. As I say, Even dogs don't think it's good to hit children.
What is my argument to explain why children should not be hit
Dogs know nothing about scientific studies. They have not read Alice Miller, Carlos González, Rosa Jové, or any philosopher, psychologist or nurse in Babies and more talking about it They have neither done nor will ever. They have not even seen on television any program that says that hitting children is wrong and that as adults we have to find other ways to educate our children. But despite that, they are clear that it is wrong.
Well this is my argument: "Children don't get hit, because hitting is wrong". Phrase that goes with the face of "You hit your children, but what are you telling me?" and that, if necessary, I continue with a "I never liked to be hit, I do not like to be hit and the people you want do not get hit ... is that, or tell me that my son is going to being smarter for hitting him. I don't hurt a child crazy. That is not done. "
And that's it. That is not done because it is wrong. That is what dogs know, which is not done because it is wrong. They do not need to know more. Well, as defending the cheek on time and carrying it out is an act of not thinking too much, of not being able to devise another strategy, of not having enough intelligence to assume that hurting someone cannot be beneficial, the strategy has to be at the same level, an argument that does not require thinking too much: "Children don't get hit, because hitting is wrong".
Video | Youtube
In Babies and more | A cheek in time ?, Violence negatively affects children's brains, When I see a father hit his son, what should I do? (I)
