Originally posted by leo9
I have always gone by Bertrand Russell's rule: "never strike a child except in anger".
I understand what you are saying, and unfortunately I am not familiar with Mr. Russell, or his work. But I have to say I can not agree with the above statement.

If anything it should read “never strike in anger!” and that would apply on any situation. I think Garry’s example is the prime – mother did not even got really upset. There need to be rules and consequences if the rules are not followed. Be it spanking, time out or deprivation of rights (taking away favourite toy or revoking of privilege to go out), I believe it is up to a parent to decide what works the best with the child in question. The main rule is be persistent. If one lets child get away with something at one time and at another the child gets punished – the child is confused – and has full right to be.

On the other hand, what are you teaching this young person if you do strike in anger? That beating someone if you are angry is right? And what is the consequence of your teachings? Next wife or husband beater?

Anyway, this is just my personal opinion.