Yes, because what a 4 year old needs is a rational explanation.
(jono_h, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 18:33, 2 replies)

so you'd only hit children when they're too young to understand the rationale
that'll end well.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 5 Mar 2012, 20:09, closed)

don't be silly! the child learns that violence is the best reaction.

( mark morrisons prison shoes I love Willie, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 20:16, closed)

Just pointing out that rationally explaining to young Jimmy that putting marbles up his nose is silly because he will have to go to hospital to have them pulled out, is unlikely to be effective.

It can be equally pointless trying to rationally explain things to teenagers.
(jono_h, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 21:06, closed)

Marbles up the nose?
at least you didn't do the usual knitting needle in the plug socket or hand in the fire that proponents of violence against children usually wheel out.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 5 Mar 2012, 21:12, closed)

Four year olds are perfectly capable of rational thought
as long as you appreciate that they don't know as much as older people and that their rational thought is therefore rather more simplistic than ours.

"Don't do that because I say so" is just as logical an explanation to them as "Don't do that because otherwise I will hit you"
(ubergeekian, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 22:52, closed)

No it isn't.
Because their tiny unformed minds are not capable of understanding actions and consequences without physical reinforcement.
( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Tue 6 Mar 2012, 8:20, closed)