Syag
Of course hitting works. Depend on how you define.works.
As long as you are stronger it accomplishes the current goal.
You want to know if it will lead to better behavior in the future? If done properly yes. So say chazal. And the פסוק.

Tltik
Quote
There is no trace in that posuk of the word or concept of chinuch, and it is your own concoction to put it there. I stated it earlier. Discipline produces compliance, not chinuch. It is incorrect and irresponsible to confuse them. That posuk was addressing compliance, and that was the dire need at that moment.
Sorry. Not exactly
We are killing the mom compliant one here
We are WAITING TILL YOM TOV to do it so EVERYONE ELSE WILL SEE AND BE SCARED AND NOT DO IT THEMSELVES!!!
Aka training the rest of the Jews not to do so.
That is chinuch. Training another to act properly.

So that the will hear / seed and be afraid and will no longer willfully transgress. How much clearer can the Torah get???? Instill in them fear so they will no longer do this improper act.

What exactly do you think it means????

And to all those posters who so vehemently state that intimidation and fear are not part of chinuch
How many times does the פסוק need to say, In slightly varying forms וכל העם ישמעו וייראו ולא יוסיפו לעשות // ולא יזידון עוד… which the commentaries clearly explain means that the punishment should be carried out publicly perhaps even in the presence of the entire Jewish population in order that everyone should see and therefore the ACT will not be repeated
So it seems pretty clear that in the eyes of hashem instilling fear is a valid chinuch methodology
That doesn’t mean that it should be done daily it doesn’t even mean it has to be done often nor that it should be done however what it definitely means is that it exists in the Arsenal of chinuch tools
One of the ראשונים
רש”י I think , says the reason the Torah tells it to us by מסית and not by נביא שקר is because מסית is a common problem so it needs such strong reaction whereas נביא שקר is not very common with all its intricacys

So as I said before, it would seem that Josef is on solid ground that In the classic Torah methodology, corporeal punishment has a very clear place.
All of the sources brought by ”the little that I know ” are from this or last generation. Exactly what I postulated earlier, that something seems to have changed where today’s rabbinical consensus seems to be to place it out of favor.
But to claim that it never was part of a Torah methodology is equal parts lunacy and ignorance

Avram,
You know what the first thing to do with a child who absolutely refuses to get up for school? ASK HIM WHY HE’S NOT GETTING UP!
Really? News flash.
In real life I do have children. They have many disparate temperaments.
Some of them will never tell you what is bothering them, you need to guess and sometimes if you get it right they will tell you sometimes not. They are that way since they were old enough to shake their heads to a yes or no question.
So asking is not always the answer.
And sometimes you may know why they don’t want to get up.
Cause they went to sleep at two o’clock so the morning. For a whole week. Cause they were reading in bed. Cause all the make nice , rewards, charts ,soft speak was not as strong as the pull of reading.
(by the way those two qualities, taciturn and book worm, often in together very much. Notice I said qualities, as most personality types, are qualities just needing to be properly channeled)
So back to the hypothetical child, who is constantly a challenge to get us in the morning,
Nothing has worked, does there ever come a time when you hit them? Or do you continue just making charts, taking away their books which they wait till you finally go to sleep so they can take it back only causing them to go to sleep later, so HE will grow up knowing that the only negative of his behavior is mild reproach or what he considers soft punishment. And then In five years when he is 14 and never goes to Minyan ,you start running to experts for help?

As I said before
It’s fairly clear that hitting used to be a normal part of חינוך
When and why exactly it changed can be discussed
But Josef is correct that in all the earlier sources it is very clear that it was a common part of the chinuch procedure.
As an aside
It is fairly common knowledge that the brisker rav said that in brisk they hit children for not being careful about shabbos FROM THE AGE OF 3
so yes as the sources quoted earlier seem to say, kids today won’t react properly to smacks so one should hold back but all the flowery rhetoric about it not being chinuch or being too young would seem to be on weak ground

“נֶאֱמָנִים פִּצְעֵי אוֹהֵב, וְנַעְתָּרוֹת נְשִׁיקוֹת שׂוֹנֵא.”

תרגום מצודות: האוהב הפוצע לאהובו למען יישר לכת, הנה הפצעים הם נאמנים, כי עשו שליחותם והועילו לזה, כי בעבורם ייטיב דרכו; אבל מן השונא, אפילו הנשיקות הן נעתרות (מרובות), והנן למשא, הואיל ואין בהם תועלת

AVRAM
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Joseph who conveniently ignored it: the Torah permits divorce, and sometimes obligates it. Are you ready to say that divorce is standard for Jews, or that the Torah implores us to divorce?
WERE WOMEN TO DO THE THINGS THAT THE TORAH DEMANDS DIVORCE FOR WITH THE FREQUENCY THAT CHILDREN DO THE THINGS FOR WHICH DISCIPLINE IS DEMANDED FOR , THEN ABSOLUTELY DIVORCE WOULD BE RAMPANT.
is that a clear enough answer?

R23 that’s fascinating. And then when he gets to 22 we just cut him loose to die.
Wow. I never knew that
Thanks for enlightening me

Bingo!!
We’ve brought up the elephant that I did not want to be the one to bring up
I think all would agree with Mariana and Winnie
So it comes out that there is always a line,past which smacking is justified.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill
We both agree, we’re just haggling over price.

So now the question is what’s worse
A child playing with matches or a child being מחלל שבת?

Rav Avigdor Miller on Child Abuse Committees
Q:
Should parents hit their children?

A:
Let me tell you something. What I’m going to say now is my own opinion. But it says in the tanach that if you love your children, you should smack them. Of course today, unfortunately, it’s a wicked world. A meshuganeh world.

So now we get some clarity
I didn’t understand your constant vehement denials of not wanting someone else’s money.
When posters write ”its not your money ”
They don’t mean it’s not Neville’s money
They mean the government
Meaning the ”you ” that’s trying to take the money by tax.
So you Neville can stop protesting a semantic point, as we know semantics are not really meaningful to you anyway, and respond to the substance.
When I engage in commerce in taking money away from everyone else.
Imagine if you will there is a billion dollars a min getting spent. If I get all billion nobody else can. Even though everyone else was legitimately angling for that money. So since I won the pot thereby shutting everyone else out, I have a responsibility to the society in which that transaction took place to give back.
When I give money which I already earned, to my offspring, nobody had a legitimate right to try to get that money as a gift, that can now say, I shut them out,. So I owe them nothing.

As to not working, I have no issue if someone doesn’t want to work, as long as they are not asking me to support them.
Are they a lazy bum if they sit and party all day? Absolutely. Some of the laziest most vile bums are the wealthiest people on the planet. That does not give me a right to tax them into slavery.

Neville
I’m not big into welfare either, but once a guy gets the check, it is legally his money, like it or not. I

You got me on that one
Back to your check im waiting for.
Once I get the money it will be my money so too bad on whoever it came from.
Why don’t you just send it already??
Cause your only free with other people’s money?

You never answered my other question
If someone makes a fortune one year, and after taxes puts the cash in a safe, no investment no interest, and lives off that the rest of his life, should the government tax him every year on what he has left?
If yes, why shouldn’t they tax everyone on all their assets yearly?
If not is he not entitled to police fire and emergency and roads because he is not paying in this year?

Is that the same as living off welfare

Neville
No. We keep telling you
There is a huge difference between keeping your own money and taking someone else’s
So a trust fund baby who lives off his families money is none of anyone else’s business
But a lazy bum who just sucks off society is a parasite and is taking other people’s money
What’s not pointed straight and simple about that answer???

Wow
So when am I getting my check.
After all
Discounting the human respective, the money currently in your bank account is the same economically as when it’s in my account
So I’m waiting

I hear
It’s probably better to just say come let’s talk

Syag ,
You quoted me as saying
”For example:
. Let’s have a discussion. You will tell me why you do this and I will explain why it’s wrong.

think about that as an opening line of a conversation with ANYone about ANYthing. Not very inviting, not very validating. ”

Now while that pull is totally accurate, it’s clearly ignoring the context.
Go back and look where it was placed

When you have let us say a teenage child who resists desisting from a specific negative behavior

, and constantly depends (SHOULD HAVE SAID DEFENDS) themselves with the same tripe,

there comes a time

when a parent can and should sit down with the child and say shayfeleh, you know what. Let’s have a discussion. You will tell me why you do this and I will explain why it’s wrong.
I will give you opportunity to say whatever you want

so let’s reconstruct
We are responding to a question of when a child has not responded to most or all other methods, and you have already gone through the issue verbally many times. The child knows you don’t agree with their position. What you are now doing is saying, shayfeleh, let’s sit down and I will explain to you why I am telling you what you need to be doing.
Yes I am telling you.
I am your parent and you need to listen to me no matter what.
But I will gladly explain it to you rationally as well.
And I am even willing to explain to you rationally why your position is wrong even had I not been your parent. However yes, underlying it all is the context of, I am your parent and you need to listen to me because that’s what the Torah says.

As to your comment on staying in bed all day….
OK I was to terse.
I meant to say
When a child knows that there is ultimately no real negative outcome to their actions, In their terms (remember a thirteen year old doesn’t always care that they won’t learn what’s being taught if they don’t attend school), then they will just do what they want. Ultimately leading to a very spoiled adult tree used to doing what they want without thought of consequence.

Avram
Hypothetical

Winnie, I agree with everything you said. That is what a great parent should be doing and when done correctly and with patience (which admittedly is difficult) that usually works.
However let’s revisit what the original question was

”How about screaming at them so that they will obey, if they otherwise wouldn’t? ”

(hitting was also brought up)

So the question in simple form is, is hitting and or screaming
At your children ”verboten ”
I don’t think it was a question of
Is the right way of parenting to be a raging tiger to your kids.
So we return to the question.
If after trying all the wonderful and correct ways Winnie so eloquently laid out your child still won’t confirm, what do you do now ?

Mariana Santos
Besides some kids can sleep just fine with no bedding and younger siblings?
What if there are none?
What if they are also not getting up?
What they need to get ready for school and are not available to play in the bedrooms?
I need more consistent advice. Sorry

Knaidlach

1) of course one can. My point is I don’t believe that one can write off the negative side of instruction and still be effective. I don’t believe there are answers that suffice. And your comment as posted in that order seemed to reinforce my point. So I wasn’t taking you to task. Rather pointing out from your comment, that it can’t be done. Sorry if it came across too forceful.
2) understood. Valid point
3) OK misunderstood
4) valid to a point. There are times when necessary. When you have let us say a teenage child who resists desisting from a specific negative behavior, and constantly depends themselves with the same tripe, there comes a time when a parent can and should sit down with the child and say shayfeleh, you know what. Let’s have a discussion. You will tell me why you do this and I will explain why it’s wrong.
I will give you opportunity to say whatever you want and we will do it over ice cream in the ice cream store. No anger no yelling and no punishment for your beliefs or feelings. But I will clearly explain why it’s wrong.
In that setting , there is nothing wrong with proceeding to do as I did which is to shred every argument so they have to admit even for a moment that you are correct and they are wrong.
Of course you can only do it if you are actually correct.
But it’s an illustration of the debt that most things, even supposedly negative ones, have a place in a parents arsenal

Look at that.
Even as a presumably adult, knaidlach , is unable to follow simple clear instructions.
I specifically asked don’t give me advice on what not to do. Don’t tell me why or what the negative results of wrong behavior will be /do / cause.
And what does knaidlach respond?
the negative aspects of hitting yelling and coercion.
And this vague amorphous statement
”parents must learn other ways how to educate children.”
Well genius I’ll ask you again.
Obviously you’ve figured out ”some other way ”because for sure you are not yelling or hitting or coercing your children.
So how’s about you share some of your tricks for those dumb ones like me who can’t seem to figure it out.
I’m trying to learn but all im getting is don’t do this don’t do that this won’t work that is bad.
Is that the positivity you are giving your kids??
Don’t don’t don’t?
How about you teach some adults how it’s done, while doing it in the fashion you are advocating parents do it to their children

And as to the second to last statement of yours
”plus it creates a distance between parents and children”
I think as a Torah Jew, that is a good thing.

Neville cb
a bailout is directly giving me someone elses money that i never earned (ill take it if offered)
its not semantics any more than saying stealing your money is the same as you spending it in my store
either way i end up with it and you dont have it anymore
every thing else is just semantics? right?

I think the above is a seasoned rational arguments among the others I have made in this thread
The only one who has come close to responding is ctlawyer
You have not answered a single point
It’s pretty lame to shift and pick a single line in someone’s post, claim ignorance of its meaning (especially for one who feels semantics are not important) and then use that as a basis for supposedly disproving a line of thought.

It would seem more likely that when you were younger you were more into being intellectually honest and as you moved in society you gradually blended into the feel good don’t think type of crowd

Ry23
I don’t fully understand your question
My point is just an additional reason to be against taking more of my dollars (if I were to be rich)
True I don’t want them to take any but it’s not my choice

ctlawyer
But I have a question for you.
You have stated multiple times that you have no issue with paying higher taxes. Even up to 50% of your earnings above 600.000
So why don’t you?
The government allows you to pay extra.
Only if others also do it are you willing? Why should others actions impact yours?
You obviously feel the government would do more good with your money. So do it now

neville-chaimberlin
“Secondly a bailout is a handout.”
So is a tax cut.
not really
a tax cut lets you keep more of what YOU earned
A bailout gives you what OTHERS earned
only if you start with the premise that all money belongs to the government unless… then they are both the same. ie government letting you keep/have more money
that is the fundamental difference
conservatives understand that money belongs to the one who earned it
liberals feel all money belongs to the government
a tax cut means, even though the government took alot of my money last year, they will take less this year.

do i like the current tax system? no.
do i have a better system? not necessarily
but that doesnt mean that things dont have clear definitions